I am showing many TA&T [Technical Assistance and Training] programs and their relationships, although my interest in Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP) stems from their recent collaborations with (instead of confrontation of) “AFCC” and drawing upon public funding (HHS grants) to do their analyses. It’s pretty obvious that the organizations writing up the projects/situation/subject matter are not going to BE the subject matter — and if so, it will be self-description.

I also try to remember which nonprofits have spun off earlier ones that made a name and got the grants.

In that regard, Technical Assistance = Propaganda Promotion, even if the topic they are writing about is or was indeed legitimate; to dominate the field by the internet, conferences, training, federal funding, and nonprofit status — is to exclude the clientele’s voices as an equally relevant viewpoint.

It should be remembered that several of these organizations got their start in the 1980s, before (really) the Internet Revolution got underway. However now that it is, business just got easier, and for individual victims of (for example) battering or abusive control — who are often fighting for sheer access to an internet (i.e., isolation is a factor in controlling others) — to expect to keep up with the rapid expansion of certain viewpoints (which are good for sales, if not necessarily good for actually stopping violence against women, or promoting responsible fatherhood EITHER) — is, well unreal.

The only way to even the playing field (being outnumbered and out financed, and less well organized) is to, I hope others also will, EXPOSE the circumstances, and then demand that certain programs be DEFUNDED (they are not reducing “roadkill” they are simply spawning more proselytes and building professional conferencer-careers) –and the organizations pay their own way through life.

When it comes to ECONOMIC control, the United States (obviously) has collective wealth beyond individuals — but I suggest addressing this issue sooner rather than later, anyhow. TAKE A LOOK! No matter where one digs in, similar behaviors will prevail; this is as good an entry point as any….]

This website has changed, and no longer openly lists certain projects that are underneath it (an older version may be on my blog)… Which I seem to recall included groups like PRAXIS International: “integrating theory & practice,” which like DAIP, had close ties to Ellen Pence (who actually was Praxis “founding director.” Their home page still holds a eulogy, as Ellen Pence died recently:

Since 1996, we have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities.

Interesting year — startup year coincided with welfare reform… Like OH SO MANY helpful nonprofit groups getting significant HHS and/or DOJ grants (although I DNR what Praxis got) — they are really “into” technical assistance and training” and quite willing to help grantees — from a safe distance from ongoing, shall we say, volatile, situations at the street level. Maybe the founders had this experience initially but after all, people age out, and it’s safer to teach than to confront in a group setting — or dispense studies on-line.

Well, I have one line of reasoning — that there is a family court around basically creates an immense loophole; any police officer anywhere can just about get out of arresting domestic violence perpetrators (they could anyway) by, when children exist, simply failing to arrest, and letting it land in the family venue. Ditto with CPS. But even if they didn’t, they still have immense discretion to simply not arrest. If they DO arrest, the DA’s have immense discretion not to prosecute also.

WOMEN’s JUSTICE CENTER /CENTRO de JUSTICIA PARA MUJERES

Santa Rosa, California

(a site I quote below, and refer to often enough) I see has written an October 2011 letter to:

I’m a women’s rights advocate who has been working for the last 20 years in the exasperating struggle to end violence against women. I’m writing because we’re stumped, and we need your help.

My opinion: these feminist law professors and women, in many respects, have for over a decade completely ignored the role of the family courts, and their relationship to the criminal prosecution of (see title) real-time crimes play in simply invalidating domestic violence law, child abuse law, in fact most criminal laws of any sort for women who have given birth. And women who give birth, aka MOTHERS, represents a significant portion of women against whom violence is routine.

In this current climate, and while that off-ramp from the criminal justice system (if the reporting and prosecution even gets there), it is next to impossible for these women to get free from an abuser – with children — and stay free unless HE simply chooses not to sue for custody or further bother her. And, if there’s a Title IV-D child support order around, even if he doesn’t want to bother her, the county can and will go after that family and those kids anyhow. That’s My take on it. So I would not be asking a feminist law professor for help, based on the track record and under-reporting of this scandal. And I’ve talked to some of them (including in my area). However, this writer has a point:

The problem is this: Modern violence-against-women laws are in place throughout most of the U.S., as are crisis centers, hotlines, counselors, and shelters. But a critical piece is missing. We don’t have anywhere near adequate enforcement of the laws. Nor do women have any legal right to enforcement of the laws, nor any legal remedy or redress when police and prosecutors fail to enforce the laws.

As such, the laws are meaningless to us. However, it takes a while — and sometimes costs a life — to recognize this.

. . . But the daunting and particular problem for women is that these absolute discretionary powers are in the hands of law enforcement agencies that are rife with anti-women biases, structures, and traditions. Violence-against-women cases are the cases these officials are most overwhelmingly prone to ignore, ditch, dismiss, under-investigate, under-prosecute, and give sundry other forms of disregard. This disparate impact and denial of equal protection is undermining all the other monumental efforts to end violence against women.

Despite all the high flying official rhetoric to the contrary, way too many police and prosecutors don’t want to do these cases. They know they don’t have to do these cases. They know a million ways to get rid of these cases. They know nobody can hold them to account. And the Supreme Court keeps driving this impunity deeper into the heart of American law. Not surprisingly, the violence against women rages on.

We can social work these cases endlessly, but when police and prosecutors don’t do their part and put the violent perpetrators in check, the perpetrators easily turn around and undo any stability and safety we and the women have attempted to secure. The freer she gets, the angrier he becomes. Without adequate law enforcement, victims of violence against women are doomed. And then they are double doomed by the void of any legal cause to hold unresponsive police and prosecutors to account. And then, all too often, she is dead

Notice that at the end of this eloquent (and I believe, truthful) letter, she refers to the “Judicial Ghetto of Family Law.” It is this Ghetto that has to be addressed if “violence against women” is to stop. To date, we are still the gender that produces children, gives birth to them, no matter how nurturing Dad is. As such, this arena, that ghetto, ALSO has to be addressed, or as an obstacle to life itself for those in it, removed:

We urgently need your help. Not in the judicial ghetto of family law where victims of violence against women are too often shunted to fend for themselves.

Why NOT? Why should women have to fend for themselves in a biased system — because thats where it typically goes after any civil restraining order (see VAWA, below) is put in place. Perhaps if there’d been more “feminist law professors” who’d gone through leaving DV AS MOTHERS, this might have been handled by now. Not saying that it wasn’t a tough uphill battle to start with. But we mothers are certainly not ballast in this journey; just treated like it in these circles!

But in criminal law where the state itself must take responsibility for securing justice for these heinous crimes. We can’t solve this problem without you.

As a first step, please pass this on to colleagues you think would most fervently fight to create a women’s right to justice. And then consider joining in yourself.

We like to believe that criminal law always applies when crimes are committed (the title lists some of the crimes which comprise “Domestic violence” and “Child abuse” and characterize the lives of people who sometimes, after years enduring these things, end up dead, or paying their abuser, which is a form of institutionalized extortion).

BUT — when a case is labeled “high-conflict” or “custody dispute” of any sort, BY LAW (apparently) it comes under the jurisdiction of a different court — which is not a real court, it’s a business enterprise. (See this blog. See other NON-federally-supported blogs or articles.

For example get this (“johnnypumphandle, re: Los Angeles “Public Benefit Corporations Supported by Taxpayers” Not only ALL the people walking through the halls — but the real estate — the halls themselves, apparently are often part of this enterprise! Why this never occurred to me before reading these matters, I don’t know. The family court is in a separate building from the main (Criminal) courthouse in MANY towns and cities across the county. That alone should have caught our attention. Now (same general idea), they are building, sometimes, “Family Justice Centers” as part of a National Alliance movement (see “One-Stop Justice Shop” posts, mine).

I reviewed this material carefully before, it takes a while to sink in. It will NOT sink in if all you see mentally is the visual of the building and its inhabitants. In order to “See” straight, one needs to see and be willing to think in terms of corporations, tax returns, and cash flow. And something relating the words “taxpayer” with “tax-exempt.” As the site says:

We have again reminded the IRS of the same scheme being perpetrated by the Private Corporation – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation – with the same bond guarantees by the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers. Taxpayers are still getting stiffed by this scam, since there is no accountability for the money and NO TAX FORMS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED!

Key in this EIN#

470942805

to This Charitable Search Site (for California) — and tell me why the Relationship Training Institute — which does business with and takes business FROM the court, evidently — is still marked “current” when no (zero, nada, zilch, nothing at all) has been filed (and uploaded) by this organization for the state of California as a charity -EVER; even though it’s filed with the IRS? Is that cheating the citizens of California, or what? Here they are (and here goes continuity in my post today):

The Relationship Training Institute (RTI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, established in 1986* by David B. Wexler, Ph.D. to provide training, consultation, treatment, and research in the field of relationship development and relationship enhancement.

Because — in the 7 years (at least) it’s been operating in California, David B. Wexler, Ph.D.’s group has not bothered to file it’s (by law) annually required tax return with the state (NOTE — which provides the California Attorney General with a Schedule B showing names and addresses of contributors, and has to list government funding) and because the CA Corporations search site is so limited, I can’t see from there OR its founding articles if this is a domestic (Ca originated) or “foreign” (out of state) corporation.

On the other hand, the group California Coalition for Families and Children which incorporated in 2010 (per same site) — and is critical of the San Diego Family Court Practices — has twice received a “file your dues” letter, which you can search at the same charities link, above. It has no EIN# because it hasn’t registered yet.

CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

I believe any group that calls itself a 501(c)3 (or “4”) should fulfil the requirements of it. However, there seems a bit of favoritism (OR, This group has no bribe to pay — below the table — for the regulatory agencies, including the OAG?); Emad G. Tadros, Ph.D., checked out the suspicious credentials of a custody evaluator, discovered a custody Mill (plus that a house cat got a diploma from the same place) and put up a website about all this, plus filed a suit, which was simply the right thing to do. In retaliation for challenging the right of the courts to continue their fraud up on the public he was fined $86K in fees, and an attempt has been made at obtaining interest, too. Apparently, this group has not cut a deal with anyone, and so the OAG WILL go after their nonprofit status. Here’s the link to “San Diego Court Corruption.”

So, as to The Relationship Training Institute, I guess not filing with the state is “close enough for jazz The Office of Attorney General.” And also close enough for an NIMH sponsored grant on Domestic Violence in the Navy, too. If our Navy was run this way, we’d be losing a lot more wars.

RTI offers an on-going series of informative workshops and state-of-the-art training programs for mental health professionals and for the public, bringing innovative leaders and teachers to the San Diego community. RTI staff also travel throughout the world training professionals in the treatment models that we have been developing and publishing for over 25 years

So, don’t try to tell me the courts and attorney general are unaware — see its website, and see the detail on its charitable registration. A letter has been sent to this charity, and its site claims it’s approved by the Judicial Council of California to provide CLE credits for its trainings!

(the logos of approving organizations).

Approving Organizations

By the way, Dr. Wexler is listed under another one, IABMCP or something:

The actual EIN# is 751726710 and it’s registered in Colorado as a 501(c)6 ” Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, etc. formed to improve conditions..” It has a tiny budget and apparently exists to distribute a newsletter, per 990 (2010 ruling.), registered as a foreign nonprofit (citing the Texas org.) since 1999 and apparently is filing its reports in Colorado OK.

Dr. Wexler anyhow, is on its Advisory Council, along with a long list of mostly but not all male personages, including Deepak Chopra…

I also note that this domestic violence training is very man-friendly… But RTI is apparently the group that does the trainings OUTSIDE the courthouse, which makes them part of the personnel bill. The earlier article was about who pays rents on the real estate, who owns the real estate, of the courthouses themselves? Reading on:

August 25, 2001 – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation and others. e.g. Los Angeles County Law Enforcement-Public Facilities Corporation and (too many to name or to discover). The Crusaders think that there are over a dozen of these ‘Public Benefit’ Corporations hiding in LA County. If you are aware of any of the others, drop us a line.

These companies are established as Tax exempt ‘charitable trusts’ under the Federal Statute – 501(c)(4). They direct millions of dollars but are basically unaudited. The Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation (LACCC), for example, controls projects for $632 million, but as yet has not registered with the California Department of Corporations even though they have issued outstanding securities for this amount.

They have established trust agreements with banks, lease and leaseback agreements with developers, securities agreements with underwriters, legal assistance from high powered law firms, yet they have no employees. All work is done ‘outside’ on authorization from an officer of the Company. e.g. bills are paid, rents are collected, legal services are performed by outsiders through agreements. As an example, O’Melveny & Myers pays the fees for this Corporation.

Is this a donation? Somehow, I think O’Melveny & Myers are not providing legal services for free.

The company has offices in the LA County facilities, claims no employees, but has all of its utilities, telephone, rent, etc. paid by the County.

Who answers the phone? A county employee, doing ‘part time’ work but receiving no pay. At least the Corporation claims to have no employees.

How are bills paid? We have a letter to Henry P. Eng, an auditor , who is told that he will receive a check for $4,730 and a like amount will be charged to the rent due to the corporation in order to balance the books. You see, the Corporation has issued bonds (Certificates of Participation) recently for $115 Million to build the Antelope Valley Courthouse. The Banc of America and four other underwriters have guaranteed the purchase of all of these certificates.

So WHY do I make those claims in the Title of this post today? Well, for one, I research TAGGS grants, and read conference brochures, and pay attention to what groups do – -and don’t — report on, including the various elephants in the room…

I’m not the only one, either, questioning what VAWA is for, except to inspire a lot of anti-feminist backlash, give Fathers & Families (GlennSacks hounds) something to complain about, and a source of funds to set up websites and conferences (ad nauseam) to perpetuate the illusion that whatever a civil — or even criminal — domestic violence action DOES, Family Courts will not quickly UNDO, even if neither parent asks them to!

I almost felt like a traitor (though I was sure in my opinion) with this round of requests I write someone to reauthorize VAWA. WHY? I thought. I already know who’s collaborating with these other courts. Well, another (non-federally funded, intentionally so) site – I like this site, too — explains:

Ever since the U.S. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994, women’s advocates have rallied again and again to assure that VAWA stays authorized and funded. The steady torrent of threats against the act from antagonist men’s groups has left advocates with little inclination to question whether VAWA is truly delivering what’s needed to end the violence and secure justice for women. But a little-disseminated legal brief we came across recently rips along the fault lines and suggests that giving VAWA a thorough critique may be one of the most important steps we should be taking to advance the struggle.

“The legal brief, signed by a dozen domestic violence scholars from around the country and submitted in 2007 to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, emphatically makes the case that VAWA not only is failing to protect women, but that this failure is rooted in fundamental flaws in VAWA’s structure and administration. “VAWA is a limited remedy,” the document states, “That fails to protect women or to discharge the United State’s obligations under international law.”

(it’s going to talk about the Jessica Gonzales case, and the IACHR. However, NO — I say that these DV scholars have simply fallen asleep at the switch, or decided to look the other way, to keep their publications, etc. coming. )

In summarizing their analysis, the brief states, “VAWA fails to accomplish four crucial things: 1) It does not provide any remedy when abuser’s or police officer’s violate victims’ rights, 2) it does not require participation of all states or monitor their progress, 3) it does not fully or adequately fund all the services that are needed, 4) it does not require states to pass or strengthen legislation around civil protective orders or the housing rights of domestic violence victims.” . . .

VAWA: “primarily a source of grants” which has not reduced domestic violence

The brief goes on to characterize VAWA as “primarily a source of grants” with non-binding terms, voluntary participation, unmonitored compliance, and which mandates nothing. And the funding is paltry. According to the brief, in 2007, the median total of VAWA grants to individual states was 4.5 million dollars. That’s less than the cost of one wing of a fighter jet allotted per state to combat violence against women.

If the core of this brief is accurate, despite the services VAWA has provided to tens of thousands of women, the message VAWA delivers to law enforcement and other public officials throughout America is disastrous. ‘You can prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women – if you feel like it. But if you’d rather not, don’t worry about it. VAWA doesn’t mandate that you do anything. And if women are upset by that, rest assured, VAWA and the courts have also made sure there’s not a darn thing women can do about it to hold you to account.‘

Most troubling of all, the brief finds that in the time from VAWA’s passage in 1994 to 2007 when the brief was filed, VAWA has not reduced domestic violence in the U.S., despite the U.S. government’s claims to the contrary. As stated in the brief, “Since the passage of VAWA, domestic violence rates have not been reduced in proportion to other violent crimes

This site writes their rationale:

And perhaps worse, these fundamental flaws in VAWA are not even a matter of discussion, debate, or protest among frontline women’s advocates. It’s critical for progress in ending violence against women that that discussion begin.

which they analyze as, and I can see this:

The Tie that Binds

VAWA requires that shelters and rape crisis centers that receive VAWA funding must demonstrate their cooperation with their local law enforcement agencies.

Individual states that administer the VAWA grants have implemented this requirement in various ways. But typically the shelters and crisis centers seeking VAWA grants must obtain signed operational agreements with their local law enforcement agencies. This has given law enforcement veto power over the survival of the violence against women centers, a controlling power law enforcement has not hesitated to use.

People should read this article — and a lot of this site, based in Sonoma County, California (wine country north of SF). I notice that the Family Justice Alliance Center made sure to get a center into Sonoma County — and if I were going to donate to somewhere to stop violence (other than the time I’ve donated, here, and off-blog) it’d be to this group, responsible for the website:

VAWA is a Federal Act of Congress first passed in 1994. By Contrast (and to oppose its premises), the National Fatherhood Initiative is a NONPROFIT started by someone with close connections to HHS, and Washington, and now many legislators — and is not only still funded, but has permeated the structure and purpose of violence prevention, child welfare, and child abuse prevention areas of goverment. While VAWA (which at least went past Congress initially — the NFI did not) promotes one kind of training, NFI promotes the opposite theories.

Then the two groups get together, for example, The Greenbook Initiative and congratulation their federally-paid-behinds for being able to get along, while women continue to die after breeding and leaving abuse. And etc.

The DOJ Defending Children Initiative: even has an “Engaging Fathers” link:

The ILLUSION that there is protection for women and children through groups such as “Child Protection Services” is fatuous. That’s not what they’re there for, apparently. Nor, apparently, are the civil restraining order issuers (typically a domestic violence nonprofit of some sort, or possibly a parent might get one on his/her own) there to prosecute or punish any crime.

I heard this from a woman (grandparent) in an unidentified urban area, regarding her grandchildren’s being in the sole custody of an abusing father AFTER CPS and police had confirmed sodomy and forced copulation with the (young boy):

Hearsay #1:

There are no laws or penal codes against child abuse by a parent. Child abuse by a parent comes under the Welfare and Institution Code (WIC).

The welfare and institution code does ONE thing — offers reunification services to the abuser. The one and ony law mandated by legislators (in such cases) is reunification.

Since the theme is “reunification” (and really, let’s get honest — “supervised visitation” concept comes from this field, reunification), no family court has any interest in re-unifying a protective mother with her child once that child has been completely (and physically) “reunified” with the abuser father. There are no fatherhood-promotion services for this (access/visitation concept is actually a fatherhood concept). Supervised visitation with a sex offender (young) father and mother has resulted in child-rape INSIDE a supervised visitation facility in Trumbull County, Ohio, recently. It has resulted in financial fraud on East and West Coast both (Genia Shockome/Karen Anderson of Amador County, PA), it has resulted in a child literally being supervised by a woman who had criminally sexually assaulted a DOG in Contra Costa County California courts (Welch v. Tippe), and — the commissioner? who made that order, as recommended by her court-crony, is I believe still on the bench — and has been, while we’re at it, on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too. After all, it’s all about the “Kids” and what’s best for them, right? How often do women whose children have been abused get put on supervised visitation for “alienating” the father by reporting — or allowing their kids to even report to someone else unsolicited, like a schoolteacher — real live criminal activity upon themselves?

Hearsay #2:

Child Protective Services labeled our case high-conflict which put it in custody court. Neither the father or I had even mentioned divorce at the time.

This mother says she saw it on their report. I’d like to see that report. Assuming it’s true, this means that CPS knows quite well that they don’t have to prosecute anything against a parent when it comes to abuse of children; they can shunt it off to family court.

Hearsay #3 (to you — this is my case):

When my children were being stolen (abducted), and I was protesting on the basis of a valid court order giving me physical custody, an attempt was made to bring CPS in — although no abuse was being alleged! When I pointed this out, the officers supervising the exchange — which I’d requested for personal safety — refused to enforce the court order, mocked me, and when I realized there was no recourse from this crew, I had to let my “ex-batterer” and the children’s father, drive off into the sunset with children I’d raised, and from this point forward (til today) not ONE single court order was consistently obeyed for more than a month, including visitation or phone contact with me, alternating holidays, or the children with the mother on mother’s day, all of which remained in the CUSTODY order.

In short, if I wasn’t going to voluntarily justify bringing on more (paid, public employee) professionals AFTER existing paid, public employee professionals simply refused to do their job (which I later learned — they don’t have to, even if not doing their job results in someone’s, or even three children’s, deaths. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales).

Talk about “interlocking directorate” – – – – I also heard from a savvy investigator (mother) (noncustodial) in another state how that, literally, when a father is accused AND found guilty of abuse in one sector (for example, criminally, or child support services) this literally causes the father to be declared “incapacitated” or incompetent — making the child a “dependency” case. The court that the mother then walks into is, in effect, a “dependency court.” The state owns her child, and if she can’t ransom it back, too bad. The ransom process is simply this: the hearings go on, and on, and on and as much money is extracted from the mother, who WILL fight back, until she’s broke too, if not in spirit. That’s the plan. That’s not an anomaly or “burp” of the system — that IS the plan.

We have heard also of horrendous situations, and I’ve reported this, of dual electronic docketing. (“Computerized or Con-puterized?” Janet Phelan on Joseph Zernik reporting. One week after she published the layperson’s explanation of this, he was picked up by police without cause and held). We’ve heard of collected but intentionally not distributed child support, in the millions of $$ (Silva v. Garcetti (who was Los Angeles D.A., involving Richard Fine). Even a brief look at what happened to Mr. Fine (besides getting incarcerated and disbarred) and how the California Legislature handled the fact that the entire judiciary was subject to bribery at the county level by payments to judges — from the county — in cases where — the county — was a party. It retroactively granted immunity, and did this quickly, lest the entire judicial system get shut down. (SBX-211) — that brief look should say, what we are dealing with is XX % crooks, and X% enablers or people who can’t themselves get out of the system because by participation, they’d be prosecuted too. Talk about “gangs” . . . that’s a Gang. Sometimes deals go between one jurisdiction and another, making them a little harder to catch (Gregory Pentoney)

Two other things which I’ve heard of from a non-BMCC “let’s ask the expert source” in recent times — and again, I present this as Hearsay, but it’s entirely in character for the venue — of more than one physical case file being kept. One is shown to the litigant when she can afford it (which ain’t always), or qualifies as low-income enough to be shown it. The other is shown and hauled out when it comes to justifying program billing — that one or both parents may be totally unaware of, occurring in their case, under their or their kids’ social security #s, and in their name.

Again, my plan is to curtail posting on this blog (I believe I’ve “said my piece” on most major points) at the end of January, and get about other aspects of life. Oh yes, and I signed the blog up for Twitter, which should curtail the length some, like by ca. (10,000 to 14,000) – 140 characters!

I realize that conversational style isn’t communication, yet the information is urgent to present and get out. The “end of January” date was in honor of the BMCC conference, which I plan to comment on every day it’s in session. Ideally, you will see one post a day from here til 1/31, however, some of the material does cause vicarious trauma to report, which may affect quality of post, or my getting one out on a certain day. While I know what I know, from study, research observation, reflection, and synthesis, expressing it is another matter.

Also, the conversing with the material style is laborious, and takes hours. Whereas in a personal conversation, say, by phone, with interaction, I know I could convey the key FAQs, overall, in 10 minutes or less, and tell people where to find more information, should they be motivated.

So here we go:

Some people I know are headed up again to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference IX in Albany, New York again this year, where the same basic information will be presented by experts, while mothers are welcome to participate from the floor and by adding their square to the quilt, by buying books which the presenters will be selling (last year’s hot-off-the-press available in softcover and at a discount – only $59 — for conference attendees) and donate, too. This is addressed to mothers who are probably being fleeced in the courts, have tortuous situations to handle, and some are paying child support to their child’s or their abuser, which is why they pull it together to come to this conference, seeking help and answers — from the experts.

One difference — a positive one — THIS year is the attendance of Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who also will be selling her newly revised “Mothers on Trial” which I know incorporates some new stories, and I plan to order it on-line.

However, I also know that it’s not about to contain the information on this blog, on NAFCJ.net, or much on the AFCC, Welfare Reform (1996), and the role of the Child Support $4 billion industry in prolonging custody conflicts, for profit. However, it will be a new presenter, and an experienced feminist who I’ll bet is not afraid to address some of the issues of Gender Apartheid (which also results in “Battered Mothers”) in front of this audience, and on which she is an expert. Perhaps she will — as I don’t think others have — bring up the impact of religion on this situation in the family courts. It’s there – -not talking about it would hardly make sense.

At the bottom of this post, I am going to list the Presenters, and brief comments or links on the ones I know. The ones I don’t, I’ll look up. Perhaps in the next post (as this one expanded into handling a few other items).

And in this post, I’m going to charge pretty hard into the entire concept behind this conference, as I did last January, afterwards.

NB: I attended one conference in all its years, but primarily to meet mothers I’d been blogging with; I’d already realized that it was a marketing conference. That’s responsible behavior for people shelling out travel, hotel, and conference fees, not to mention in general. You find out who’s saying what and evaluate it.

The Title of this year’s conference is apparently “IS WHAT WE’RE DOING WORKING”?

HUH?

We who? (Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, et al.?)

Working for whom?*

Ask a foolish question, you will get a very foolish answer. Act on those answers and you become a fool. A sucker is born every minute, and I regret every minute of my own “suckerhood” which listened to domestic violence rhetoric for too long, and didn’t think to GO CHECK TAX RETURNS AND NONPROFIT FILINGS FIRST, which might’ve had a different result.

That’s why I believe that it’s the “experts” that should be sitting around the tables in the conference and taking notes, and the women themselves that should be up on stage giving testimony, ideas — and controlling the microphones. Then some of the questions they have might get some answers, through collective wisdom, as women tend to do — when not co-opted into the hierarchical model of relating to each other which is more characteristic of males, and of this society we live in.

The structure of this type of conference is didactic — from presenter to participant. They are the dispensers of wisdom, women & mothers attending, the recipients. Go forth and deliver the expert wisdom to your areas, (seek to hire us as expert witnesses in your court cases) and if it doesn’t work — next year we are going to do the same basic routine anyhow, and your feedback will NOT be front and center, if it is allowed at all.

Seriously — that’s how it goes. And anyone with a child in a custody case has a ticking clock, if not time bomb, which is running. We do not have time to beat around the bush and fail to address things in PRIORITY order.

So anyhow, “is what we (?) are doing working?”

Somehow this is going to be stretched out into a weekend’s worth of material? Is there a better question to ask, such as — what can we do to either clean up or shut down the family law courts if they refuse to clean themselves out, which is unlikely? How many experts does it take to distract a mother’s attention from who is paying her abuser and the judges that gave that kid to the abuser? Why doesn’t this conference ever bring up child support, welfare reform, or mathematical issues, such as economics?

Or, for that matters, why are not the people who experienced abuse considered THE experts, and why are the true experts (the battered mothers) not as informed as the presenting experts on things that others figured out over 15 years ago in this field?

This is, among other things, a marketing conference, and a chance for women to sit with each other and have company in their distress. It is NOT a place for them to actually reform the courts, or learn the most direct possible ways (if any ways are possible) to get their children back, or a crooked judge off their case. That I can tell.

*A comment on the site says women can contribute to a quilt for missing children. (Which somehow reminds me of a church situation — you may attend, women: Here — serve some cookies, greet perhaps, and of course work child care, the sermon and other important things will be piped in from our (male) minister). . . . . now, there are presenters who are mothers on the platform, some of who I know by name, and I know those mothers are not about to rock the boat — by reporting on what you’ll find here, NAFCJ.net, Cindy Ross, Richard Fine (Emil Tadros either, for that matter) and other places. Somehow that information isn’t worth informing Moms of, which results in Uninformed Moms, wondering why things aren’t changing.

You see, professionals (and I was one in one or two fields) know they’re not expert in other fields and so tend to defer to people presenting as the experts in a different field. This works REAL well when mothers in panic, danger, or serious trauma go for help to DV experts who are hired (or volunteered) with agencies which do not themselves see fit to look at the larger picture AND TELL THE MOMS ABOUT IT.

Moreover, once a case — or person — moves out of their area of “expertise” — meaning, case in point for mothers, into the family law system — it becomes “not my problem” and they can, I suppose, somehow sleep with themselves at night (those who actually have functional consciences) without drugs or sedatives, by saying – it’s out of my hands now, I did my part!

Ay, there’s the rub. It’s a win-win for the civil restraining order (DV agency) field AND for the Family Law Field, because no one “out-ed” either field’s collaboration and centralization over the years. No one has done this much to date because so few people follow the funding, particularly experts protesting “Child abuse, Domestic Violence” and so forth.

Slightly Longer answer, Fresh kill, two children (10 & 14) into someone else’s care (foster? relatives?) this week in California. The woman showed up, obediently, for a family court hearing, and was murdered in cold blood, in her car.

Authorities say the man shot his wife, gave chase to police, then shot himself; they were scheduled to appear in family court for a hearing

A man at the Hemet courthouse for a child-support hearing calmly walked up to his wife’s car and fired two fatal shots, then led police on a car chase before killing himself Wednesday morning, according to witnesses and police

. . . .

Costales had no criminal record in Riverside County, and the couple had no history of domestic violence with each other, nor was there a restraining order in the case. However, Costales was accused of domestic violence in a previous divorce.

The two children now aged 10 and 14, we don’t know who their biological mother was –whether the woman slumped over in her car that day, or the former Ms. Costales: However, they were born (do the math, see article) prior to this marriage: 2012 January minus ten, minus fourteen years. Mr. Costales prior marriage had mutual restraining orders as of the year 2000.

‘A HORRIBLE SIGHT’

Kimberly Jones, 45, of Hemet, said she was in her car when she heard the first gunshot, which she thought was a firecracker. She looked back to see Schulz back away quickly.

Jones ducked as additional shots were fired, then ran over to find Schulz bleeding and slumped over in the driver’s seat. Jones, who is a nurse, said she tried to resuscitate the woman in the parking lot as Costales casually walked back to his car.

. . . She moved out, not him….

Schulz told the court in September that she was unemployed and receiving $550 in monthly aid. She asked for Costales to be required to make child and spousal payments and to make payments on their Honda Pilot until she could afford to get her own vehicle.

“I need hearing because of no income but aid,” Schulz wrote in court documents. “Living on my brother’s couch, looking for work daily, been unsuccessful. Children need their own home and stability.”

The age difference: Him vs. Her — was 17 years. We don’t know this situation, but here’s a woman who never apparently even SAID “domestic violence” — and yet still died asking for something reasonable. Did she bring children into the relationship (was he their father?). Did he seek a needy woman with children to make up for loss of his first wife and two sons (now adults)?

Do second wives EVER believe the record on the first wives’ court docket?

I went to look this one up at the Riverside Court, but found out that it’s not even free to view the images, and in doing so, they will know who is looking. So much for public oversight from a safe distance!

Police closed off a portion of the courthouse parking lot, stranding about 50 people who were unable to get to their cars to leave, but the courthouse remained open. The Hemet branch of the Riverside County courts handles family law cases in addition to civil, small claims and traffic issues.

Why did she leave? Who knows? Was this unreported violence, nonsupport, or what? Where are the children going to live now? Who HAS them now?

This was a TANF case. She was on aid — that means that only if there has been violence, or some severe extenuating systems, is she allowed some sort of diversion away from seeking child support from the father. The county wants its programs funded. If “aid” goes out, the County controls the collection of child support. This was likely an administrative hearing — there seems not to be any discussion over custody or visitation. This woman didn’t know, and now never will, what receiving welfare from anywhere in California puts one at risk of. Had it not ended this way, it might have stretched out for years in the courts as well.

Suppose this man had not been just Mr. Costales, but Mr. DeKraii, and been in a real bad mood that day? Who else might have died?

Hence, we have to re-think this phrase: “Clear and Present Danger.” It has 3 usages.

1. In the law, unless it’s been rescinded by now — in California, a Batterer is a “Clear and present danger to the mental and physical health of the citizens of California.” If one continues reading the law, they then talk about something like a task force at the District Attorney level.

2. In Usage by AFCC, “Lack of Resources” to the family courts is the “Clear and Present Danger.”

3. I feel it’s safe to say now, clearly, and quite presently, that “the family courts are a clear and present danger to the citizens (not just parents) of the state of California.”

So much for the domestic violence industry. It doesn’t hold water once it’s in “conciliation court.” They just forgot to tell the mothers this, evidently.

I fully realize that’s “heresy” (but the courts themselves are based on psychological theory and clear intent to undermine the meaning of criminal law and drive business to therapists, etc.) but anyone concerned about my POST-battering relationship, POST-family law custody matters (like we say, it goes, so long as minors and two parties are all alive, until the children reach majority) — I have no criminal record and no criminal intents either. I showed up to court hearings no matter how scared I was, and was forced to sit at the table with my ex, and from this close range, somehow “negotiate.”

People want to “reform” Family Court. That’s crazy thinking. It doesn’t account for the roadkill.

Although I can’t blame the average citizen, who thinks that his /her taxes are going to support something noble or good when it pays these salaries for family courts throughout the land, and more. When the situation hits them, personally (evidence is that not all close relatives or friends figure it out, either), perhaps the 2 + 2 will = 4. Who has it helped, and what’s the ratio of helped to roadkill, to children being tortured, children sent into foster care, parents experiencing MIA children, etc.? That’s a system someone can supposedly MANAGE?

Here’s a summary, a post from long ago (about 1.5 years ago) which I’m amazed it still gets attention, and was today:

I posted this on August 17, 2009

This detailed a murder/suicide which occurred FIVE HOURS after the man posted $1,500 bail and was released. The woman did everything right — almost. She didn’t leave her job and the area, she didn’t evidently know to insist that if this man was released, she be notified (nor was she, apparently) in fact, perhaps she didn’t have a fast enough learning curve to understand that once provoked by resistance, some men become extremely dangerous, at which point in time, it is imperative to stay alive — and anything short of ENSURING that is risky, even putting job retention ahead of it.

I then in the blog talk back to the various circus of people saying “it spiraled out of control” and so forth, essentially failing to analyze. THEN I go back approximately 10 years and look at DV murders in that area and in NJ, compare it to the money spent to stop domestic violence, and have to ask, HUH?

There are a few things I noticed on the re-read of my older post, which I may get out later. For example — that the Prosecutor quoted had been Presiding Family Law Judge, and it had been a civil restraining order.

Is it possible that this very system of civil restraining orders, although they jumpstart safety, are themselves a fail-safe, which still end up with dead bodies afterwards? How sad – in that this young? woman wasn’t a mother yet, either- – she really could’ve possibly relocated. It is easier for a single person who doesn’t have to deal with ongoing visitation, custody orders, the children’s change of schools, etc. — to locate, than a woman with children attached. Not that it’s easy, but it would seem LEGALLY easier. If she wants to go, they were not married, have no property in common — what could LEGALLY prevent her from leaving?

But it’s not that way when there is a family around, in the eyes of the state.

Meanwhile: We have a 7500 word post here, and below are the listed (possibly not the latest list, but from the website) PRESENTERS at BMCC IX.

I have to go now, but will comment another time on those that I know of. It is not an alpha list and I notice that Jennifer Collins (who is a young woman and associated with or running “Courageous Kids” — daughter of HOlly Collins) is on their twice.

Several of these people, I have personally and sometimes several times, talked to about why there is so little tracking of AFCC, fatherhood funding and other things, in their advocacy.

2012 PRESENTERS Bios to be added shortly

Jennifer Collins

Carly Singer

Michael Bassett, J.D.

Carol Pennington

Liora Farkovitz

Lundy Bancroft- author

Barry Goldstein – author, former attorney

Joan Zorza – DVLeap, doesn’t blog family law matters

Kathleen Russell*

— *of Center for Judicial Excellence. Won’t report on AFCC, barely reports on fatherhood funding, but loves high profiles. Not a mother.

Connie Valentine (CPPA)

Karen Anderson (CPPA and her case is detailed in Johnnypumpandle — but this crowd simply ain’t interested.)

Phyllis Chesler

(if there were better company I’d try and get there this year, to meet her)

Gabby Davis

Loretta Fredericks

Loretta Fredericks in my opinion should not be allowed to present. She should be put on the spot and have women fire questions about her. Unfortunately, so few women know ANYTHING about MPDI, Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, Battered Women’s Justice Project, how much TAGGS says the MPDI (etc.) got (HHS funding) — or the infamous collaboration with the AFCC in “Explicating Domestic Abuse in Custody” (or similar title) which was also public funding. She also is featured in AFCC as a presenter, i.e., on the conference circuit? Has she influenced them to understand abuse — or vice versa. This situation (not her personally — we’ve never spoken) PERFECTLy represents what Liz Richards of NAFCJnet has correctly (my research validates this) calls a DV expert functioning as a “heat shield” for fatherhood providers. They lend legitimacy where there is non.

Michele Jeker

Maralee Mclean

Angela Shelton

Wendy Murphy

Jennifer Hoult

Sandy Bromley

Renee Beeker (advocates court watch)

Joshua Pampreen

Nancy Erickson

Karin Huffer

Jason Huffer

Crystal Huffer*

*Huffers talk about and help women deal with Legal Abuse Syndrome).

Holly Collins

Jennifer Collins

Zachary Collins

Garland Waller

**Collins and Waller are central to the conference and high-profile, I believe people know about them.

Dara Carlin*

*Formerly DV advocate from Hawaii, then it happened to her. Didn’t notice that the legislator she was sure was on women’s side actually had close ties to a Fatherhood Commission in Hawaii (a What?). This was how I learned about Fatherhood Commissions, actually. She didn’t “Get” it. Also hadn’t noticed that AFCC was presenting — in Hawaii — on PAS, etc.

Toby Kleinman

Linda Marie Sacks

(mentioned in my 2nd “About This Blog” — how to get to the Supreme COurt citing Dr. Phil, Oprah, and a Radio show onesself was interviewed on, thereby giving the rest of mothers protesting abuse a nice reputation for not being too bright. Seriously!)

Rita Smith*

(NCADV Leadership. NCADV is atop the pile of statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence which are state-funded, although not too much funding. It takes fees from these organizations and sells things, has conferences, etc. Was cited positively by Women in Fatherhood, Inc. which I find interesting …..)

Eileen King (“Justice for Children” also I think on Linda Marie Sacks case, which Supreme Court refused to hear).

Mo Therese Hannah

(self-explanatory — and running the conference, with help It says from Ms. Miller. I don’t recoqnize the other names).

Liliane Miller

Raquel Singh

Tammy Gagnon

Louise Monroe

Chrys Ballerano

Hopefully publishing this post won’t cost me what friends or colleagues remain (which is few anyhow), but I always am favorable to truth over friendship, when the latter compromises it and so much is at stake. This conference, unless it exposes the operational structure, financing, and purposes of the entire family law business enterprise, can probably not help mothers win their court cases, u9nderstand the situation, and will redirect their activism towards asking for more task forces. We just got this — and not one family law spokesperson on the last one (for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence).

Perhaps they all need a year off, and to go take a starter course from H&R Block, spend some time on their state corporate and charity websites, learn how to write a FOIA, WRITE some, and look at what comes up. NOTE: That’s not Rocket science, doesn’t require a Ph.D. and they won’t perish if they actually learn from sources, in tead of as interpreted through people who have things to sell.

I reserve judgment (any further judgment) until I find out who the other presenters are. Meanwhile, say some prayers for the two children of Mr. Costales and his “estranged wife” he just murdered, while she was complying with a court order in order to have enough to live on after leaving him, this past week in Hemet California — which is in Southern, CA, Riverside County.

Righteous Indignation, Determination to do something, and a Healthy Sarcasm — admirable, I love it.

Also one has to love anyone who can file enough Right To Knows, get information sufficient to file a CIVIL suit against a FAMILY court racket(eering set of individuals), have (I believe as a result of that and related) suit, the FBI come charging in to haul off evidence (for what purpose, remains to be seen) and post it for all to see. And keep posting. Again, I came here from Kentucky — after I found some dude from this area (Dunmore, PA) getting his product marketed through the Kentucky Family Court System, which has a ridiculous number of “Divorce Education” programs and one that clearly uses extortion to get Dads in arrears into fatherhood program probably aimed at about 6th grade (maybe tops, 8th) level of intellect. And that is called a “Court of Justice”!

Since 1998 the Kentucky Court of Justice has completed, authorized or begun construction on 70 new judicial centers.

These new facilities have given Kentucky citizens safe, efficient, cost-effective buildings in which to exercise their legal and constitutional rights

Including the right to be forced into more Parenting Classes . . . . . I wonder, is a “Judicial Center” like a one-stop County-based Family Justice Center, like California has? ….

Here are those ELEVEN DIVORCE EDUCATION COURSES (one of which leads us to Dunmore, PA and Lackawanna County problems…..). This presumes that everyone divorcing is ignorant about divorce (probably never heard or saw anyone else experience divorce with kids) and needs to be taught a lesson. And someone has to pay the teachers, obviously, and buy their coursework.

“Turning It Around” is the one that extorts noncustodial (fathers) behind on arrears. Take our course = get out of jail free card. Of course, someone pays for that, and probably a fatherhood program, i.e., coming from funds that would otherwise go to feed a child. All of this comes under what is called on the label — and to the public a COURT OF JUSTICE (does that sound “just” — that everyone needs a parenting class, and fathers need to learn how to stand up and be real men?).

But in private sessions and collaborations, these are actually holistic ways of solving family’s problems for them, against their will, and at their expense — a well as society’s problems for itself, at ITS expense. See 70 new buildings and outsourced parenting classes.

What is divorce education? and why is there a need? [1] As the number of family-related court filings has risen over the years, families have increasingly relied on the courts to resolve family law issues and problems including child custody, visitation, child support, paternity, emergency protective orders, and restraining orders. . .

In an effort to help family members cope with divorce, judges [2] are increasingly requiring parents to attend programs to make them more aware of the impact of divorce on children.[2b] These programs give families exposure to information and skills [3] that may ultimately lead to a reduction in the number of disputes that require a court’s intervention.[4] Most importantly, by requiring divorcing parents to attend these programs, the courts are making a statement to the community that “children matter” [5]! Divorce education programs are being treated as a “first line of defense”[6] . It is estimated that up to a million children a year across the country will experience the impact of divorce.[see 2]

That’s prime-time baloney, and just “how it goes” in Unified Family Courts these days. There’s a reason they’re unified too — probably to make more central control of required parent education (etc.) easier to do a “AFCC judicial coup” on. Underlined, numbered phrases are better translated:

[1] What the hell, and whose idea, is divorce education — and IS there a need? No. In fact, judging by these courses, hell no!

[2] . . . help family members . . . judges” in the same phrase is an oxymoron. We are talking JUDGES.

The insistence that a non-family (it just split!) is actually a family is just the beginning of the built-in cognitive dissonance of this venue. Any families that are actually working it out for their own kids are excluded — they just settled their differences without court intervention. Ergo, what remains is former families (if that) that are clearly demonstrating, they are NOT about to function as families, or interested in doing so, either.

Many of these are victims of crime by their exes, or the other parent.

So a more honest word would be litigants. They are in court — someone filed a complaint or motion – so the term that applies uniformly is “litigating.” But if a FAMILY court site said “litigants,” then someone might drift mentally back to the right the due process, etc. actually still apply, which is not the desired effect of Family Law. Getting rid of the concept of individual rights is at the heart of it. Hence — when discussed, there is not one litigating/moving parent v. another, by definition, litigating/responding parent, but there is ONE entity, “family” which has members. That entity, again, is at this point already a fiction.

The purpose of requiring divorce education is a captive consumer audience of programs that wouldn’t sell-themselves without court intervention.

A more accurate translation of [2] is: “In an effort to supplement their state-payrolls, although being a judge is one of the highest per-hour professions around, with no potential lack of customers in sight, and to further fund their pensions & retirement lifestyle, including in the very far outside chance, despite judicial immunity and a hugely wide ‘discretion’ available to family law judges in particular, if they get thrown off the bench or caught & punished for doing something really bad or illegal, Judges are increasingly REQUIRING parents to attend programs run by them and their colleagues, some of which also require textbooks they, or their colleagues, have written, as pre-planned in tax-deductible conferences that strategize how to convince parents and the public that this is helping – the parents, or the public.

[2b] this is code for a Kids’ Turn program, or something like it — which Kentucky, as I’ve said before and will again, has here in its offerings. By dating and comparing these various programs, across whichever state they cropped up in (and looking at their contents), one can deduce which was the grandpappy of the parent education courses, and which were offspring, or simply cousins. Right now, the earliest I can see is 1987 Kids’ Turn as direct to the courts. However, there are some based in Kentucky which pre-date, I think. (NIRME/IDEALS — but these are not court-ordered yet, I think, they are marketed with support from HHS, though as many parent education programs are).

[3] . . . again, people going to court have a fight on their hands, and are seeking justice — not therapy, or more life skills. For some partners, true justice would be having a judge or someone else validate their thesis that their ex is nuts — and hence not competent to handle custody, ergo, who gets child support if they aren’t? As such, the other partner will be FIGHTING this. But n the context of divorce, the most helpful skills would be how to get and keep their case out of the courts sooner, nor later. Even if they were needed, the theory that the courts are crowded because parents (some of them bearing Ph.D.s and masters in various professions) lack “information and skills” — the courts are crowded because one really poor custody decision is likely to bring the other parent (often the nonabusive one) back into court seeking (ignorantly) to correct it.

In fact, who has measured yet whether there are more — not less -divorces because of the billion-dollar-a year child support enforcement and distribution industry placing undue financial pressure on the individual households across the country? Or because of the inane (assuming the motive is what it claims to be) practice of assigning criminal matters to mediation, and then having the county pay the mediator, plus federal grants subsidize the mediator, which in turn then encourages more and more mediation, simply to help support the courthouses and those in them?

[4] . . . “disputes that require a court’s intervention.” If it’s just a dispute, then it doesn’t require major intervention. If it’s an assault, it does require intervention — to deter further assaults. Hence jail, or prosecution would be in an order. Whoever puts up these websites is getting sloppy – the word “dispute” is AFCC code for domestic violence or child molestation, just like the word “estranged wife” is clue that there’s been a “dispute” that involved a crime scene cleanup. These disputes do not REQUIRE a court’s intervention, but by setting up systems to claim jurisdiction wherever their IS a custody “dispute” the court system itself has been trawling for cases that otherwise would be settled somewhere else. The statement is a per se lie, and reveals the “Court’s” public posture that in any case, whatsoever, the fact that parents are in court indicates that BOTH (not just one)of them are incompetent and hence deserve forcible mental health treatment.

[5] . . . ‘by requiring divorcing parents to attend these programs, the courts are making a statement to the community that “children matter” ‘.

This appears to be a typo. It should read thus:

. . . ‘by requiring divorcing parents to attend these programs, the courts are making a statement to the community that “children don’t matter” ‘

If the courts were so concerned about single parent household and the children, they’d wish to preserve — not drain – parent finances and time. By their own admission, the legislatures and family codes usually say that it’s in the best interests of the child to have frequent and ongoing contact with both parents. Forcing them to sit through inane classes, and pay for it, shows just how selfish the judges are, not to mention narcissistic.

[6] . . .Divorce education programs are being treated as a “first line of defense”

Have you heard of the “royal plural,” as in (spoken with dignity), “We are not amused.” Or the royal third person, i.e, when speaking of onesself, or one’s own creations, using third person absent any possessive pronouns. [[actually — on looking it up, see link, it turns out this wasn’t the royal plural. Queen Victoria actually was speaking for more than one person.]] Anyhow, I think enough people understand this as a single entity speaking in plural for majesty and to add extra weight to the statement, which otherwise would just be a personal statement of belief or feeling. “The royal plural” has what I’ll call the pseudo-scientific passive. In this, the speaker is declaring he/she/it (which is whoever wrote that website for the Kentucky State Court of Justice?) is not an agent of the situation; nay they were a passive bystander, a simple observer of the situation, a qualified researcher narrating how the world is.

“Divorce education programs are being treated as a “first line of defense” is better translated, as posted on the state court website:

[[Shh. Confidential — do not leak this!]] “WE are selling OUR programs as a “first line of defense.”

Pretty smart, don’t you think, considering WE are already government employees!

Divorce and parental flaws are the enemy. That “divorce = enemy” line is quite the coup, considering it’s now no-fault divorce era in many states. If that doesn’t drive them nuts soon enough, we’ll come up with another insulting phrase, like “parent coordination.” There is no FAULT to be assigned in divorce to one partner or the other, therefore divorce itself will become the enemy. Yahoo, ka-ching!

= = = = =

YEP — that’s the Kentucky State Court of Justice and God only knows (I haven’t counted yet) how many others across the country.

The AOC carries out duties that are mandated by the Kentucky Constitution, including administering the Judicial Branch budget, building and maintaining court facilities, maintaining court statistics through a statewide case management database, administering personnel policies and payroll for court personnel, and providing educational programs for judges, circuit court clerks and support staff.

So, who in the AOC put those 11 Divorce Education links on there? and were these selected by administrative order, or something involving the citizens/ general public?

The Kentucky Court of Justice is one of the commonwealth’s finest achievements and has earned a national reputation for many of its initiatives, including Family Court, Drug Court, judicial center facilities, judicial education, pretrial services, court interpreting services, and diversity awareness. Its statewide case management system has put Kentucky on the cutting edge of court technology.

The Kentucky court system is committed to providing fair and equal treatment to its personnel and to the citizens who come before its courts, regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

The head of the AOC helps draft legislation for it:

Laurie K. Dudgeon

As director of the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts, Laurie K. Dudgeon oversees nearly 3,300 employees, including 403 elected justices, judges and circuit court clerks. She administers the $300 million Judicial Branch budget, drafts and promotes passage of legislation affecting the courts, and works with officials at the county, state and national levels.

Since being named director in 2009, she has commissioned the National Center for State Courts to audit the AOC in an effort to achieve a leaner, more efficient organizational structure. . . .

Ms. Dudgeon currently serves on the Governor’s Recovery Kentucky Task Force and has been actively involved with Hospice of the Bluegrass, the American Cancer Society and New Horizons Child Development Center. She resides in Frankfort with her two children, Kathleen, 10, and Tate, 7. ((She’s a single Mom?)) ((appears to be a Disciples of Christ church-related child care))

**by coincidence (?) to take these classes, parents must contact a publisher in Georgia who lists Ann Marie Termini (of PA) and Susan Boyan (of GA, I think still) to find out how to enroll. . . . . That’s odd, because Kentucky seems to be full of parent educators and relationship educators, in fact some of the older ones in the field hail from Kentucky. I guess the grass is always greener out of state (either that, or parents are going to be slower to recognize what hit them, or hear about parental complaints on custody outrages from other states?). . . ..

Is this registered in Kentucky at all? Let’s see: Corporations search on only “Kids First” term shows none by the full name, and out of the (only) 7 active corporations with the name “Kids First,” some are academies, two are dental clinics, leaving — well, do you see any which might relate to the one being sold through the state court site? And of the 16, only 7 are active leading me to think that groups focused on “Kids” are not too good at staying in business.

I also just searched “Muklewicz” “Libassi” and (for fun) “Termini” under founding officer and registered agent name, coming up zero. You can look yourself — is the state of Kentucky forcing Kentucky residents to do business illegally in Kentucky with a foreign corporation not registered in their state? Because I’ll bet I could find at least three California corporations that apparently fit that qualification.

Now, Back in PENNSYLVANIA:

I was working on this post for several days, in part because I hesitated to “out” that one of the founders of the Doherty Deceit Forum (it seems there are two — Joe Pilchesky, and wife Joanne). As his “stop the fraud” is very “in your face” he’s also very “in your face” when challenged (according to facts), especially by a woman. I am complying with the terms of the forum (which means you don’t get the backstory that I hear from three — count’em — sides on the particular relationships between (now that it’s out in the open),

Joe,

His “paramour” (his words), a Dr. Stephanie Tarapchak, whose custody case it seems he’s territorially defending in public and in the courtroom. This is one of two custody cases, primarily, that are posted and avidly discussed on-line, and

Joanne, his wife.

ABOUT THE LOCAL SOAP OPERA —

Apparently I’m not the only one that took some heat for fact-checking, or countering some statements; in one of the comments, Joanne (who was a moderator of the forum, although much more subdued in tone, and posting less often) she contradicted him, and he told her to “take a long walk off a short pier.”

So few WOMEN (mothers) will go do this Right To Know process, it’s fine with me if some guy does it instead, even if it’s to protect a woman he’s having an affair with, in addition to helping the public. Up to a point.

Anyhow here’s a recent exchange, which brings up one point: No more hero worship. Bake your own cookies, do your own lookups, and scramble your own eggs, in this field! Pennsylvania has a serious, problem, obviously (see Luzerne County, see Penn State, see FBI raiding this county’s courthouse AFTER the finances of it were starting to get laid bare). But the concerned public didn’t have any trouble with the sexist comments, the cheating on one’s wife and degrading her on-line, etc.

So, Joanne (who apparently moved out a long time ago) gave Joe a “Happy Christmas” — and a Protection Order with Kickout. Apparently (actually, I checked the Recorder of Deeds), the house is in her name, as of December 2001.*****

Special Christmas present from Joanne to me, “Merry Christmas, Joe, this is a PFA and you’re evicted from your home”

Printer Friendly

I thought I’d share this private Christmas moment with all of you, since I’m such a stickler about transparency. As they guy who spends most of his time ensuring our government officials suffer as much bone-crushing, humiliating transparency as possible, it’s only right that I subject myself to the same cringing standard.Right around 2ish today I got a call from a nice man who identified himself as a Deputy Sheriff. He said he had a PFA to serve upon me, so I told him I was home and he could come right over. Two clean-cut looking deputies showed up and went about the business of serving me with the PFA. First question is always, “Are there any guns in the house?” Not being a gun type guy, I said no. Next point of interest (I knew this was coming) was that I had to immediately vacate my home of 15 years, notwithstanding the fact that she hasn’t lived in the house for 21 months, since she lives in Philadelphia. So, for her to feel safe in Philadelphia, I’m evicted from my home in Scranton. This is apparently possible when only “her” name is on the deed. At any rate…First thing I wanted to take, of course, were my computers. You can buy socks, underwear and a toothbrush anywhere at anytime, right? The deputies hesitated to let me take them, but one of them made a phone call and I was allowed to have them. They gave me a few more minutes to gather a few essentials and nicely put me off the property, locking the doors to the house behind me. They were at all times very professional and courteous.I’ll post up the PFA and some of the details that led to this most happy occasion as soon as I get my computers and scanner set up, perhaps tomorrow. I have a hearing on Jan. 4, 2012 at 9:00 am, but I don’t at this time know what judge it’s in front of, although the Honorable Judge Corbett, who I just had a screaming match with on Monday in Family Court, signed the PFA and she put a smiley face under her name. (Just kidding about the smiley face, but if you look close enough……..nah, can’t be.)I always wondered what other guys have done on a moments notice that they had to get out, so now I know. They just do it. Then again, I never felt sorry for any of them, either. I figured they had it coming. A judge will decide if I did, but it’s screwed up that I have to leave my home when she lives in Philly. It is what it is. I’m wondering now if she is in the right jurisdiction, since she doesn’t live here. The PFA speaks for itself. You’ll read it tomorrow.It isn’t until you’re gone that you realize what you didn’t take, like the Christmas presents you just bought your grandchildren, children and friends. And there they are – locked in a house I am legally prohibited from entering. I’m sure Santa will find a way to get around that small obstacle.I suppose, for some reason after abandoning this marriage 21 months ago she suddenly feels threatened five days before Christmas and filed this PFA.

More to come :) Merry Christmas, and be happy someone isn’t evicting you from your home this Christmas season.

@@@@@

Well, that’s a male point of view on the kickout, and the female point of view is on the face of the order, no doubt, as well as the declaration to go with it. Obviously this is a civil order (I don’t see any arrest record mentioned). He says he’s going to post the order, too, and I’m sure will. I doubt any of the judges (who in this case are being scrutinized by the same person) were highly upset at having the order signed, and I hope he has a good place to live. From the looks of the forum, he has lots of supporters, so if it’s not possible to just up and rent somewhere, maybe they’ll be kind and hospitable.

I just wish the focus would remain on duplicating that effort. Not everyone can file a civil suit (particularly depending on what’s at stake — like one’s job, or contact with/safety of one’s child) but this literally identified the presence of all kinds of financial fraud — and intent to commit, plus a step by step “how” — in a family courthouse. And I believe it was that action — and not the picketing or the posting of particular custody nightmare cases — that got the FBI to swoop down on the Lackawanna County, PA’s family courthouse.

I’ve blogged close on one month (about 100 posts) on this forum, and provided link after link, plus exhortations to look at the nonprofits in the courts, particularly the membership organizations. I also posted direct grants to the county in question, and identified how, where, and with whom the problem personnel are hooking up with each other and calling in the cronies. In the process of this, obviously, all sorts get involved, particularly in such a large forum with both men and women involved.

I figure, well, that’s just part of the deal, and not too big a deal, with an open forum, and not the main point, let’s get to the financial matters that have allowed a dictatorial, allegedly overcharging, leaseless contractless GAL (Danielle Ross)/Judge (Harhut, who by court order brought her on board to run business from county property, apparently for free) combo to funnel business to a parent coordinatior, and other cases I reason, it’s an open forum (after moderator who screens/approves signups) and a whole variety of creative expression avatars. The primary offence which would prompt being thrown off the forum seems to be outing private identities or posting contents of private messages. And as the forum already underwent a court challenge backed by the ACLU after someone unfavorably portrayed ON the forum (and politically connected to the Pennsylvania State Police) got it shut down improperly, without notice to the owners. AND — get this — the company isn’t even a US Company, it’s based in Canada! (the paperwork is under “cases” at DohertyDeceit.com (Doherty, FYI, is the mayor).

There was another poster who got his “wings clipped” after an ethnic slur. In a forum that has gotten, it says, 19 million hits to date (open since 2005), it’s pretty tolerant. But, as they don’t tolerate ethnic slurs, not even one, that opens the door for me to bring up slurs based on gender — not just good-humored, or part of the general talk, but pretty aggressive ones. And the verbal ones are coming mostly from Joe. Some are below, and I sure don’t feel like rehearsing all of them. Assertions that all women are all manipulative (using pregnancy to land a man), or other matters. These came from the moderator, who is also functioning as a hero and leader to some of the mothers involved. There were two moderators — Mr. and Mrs. (Joe and Joane) Pilchevsky, but he is more active submitting posts, at least on these threads. I began to wonder what it’s like working alongside and living with someone who holds this view of all women, and is upfront about expressing it, too. Not to mention, who it seems has been having an affair with someone else who’s on the topic of the forum (which is evident from it).

(Well — she wasn’t living with him, it turns out).

So recently — after weeks on-line, while respecting the rules myself, and understanding all this, I commentedon a particularly objectionable photo (gravatar) of a full-frontal naked woman (at least from waist up) half-submerged in a pool, plus another one with the theme “under the thumb” which repeatedly showed a close up (drawn, not photo) of a thumb being completely pierced by a nail, over and over. Many of the cases that end up in the family courts come from people who’ve been assaulted in the home and exposed to violence already. We don’t need more.

So I commented on these, and took, from the moderator, a full-frontal “shut your feminist face” type retort. Potentially jeopardizing men’s right to entertain themselves visually (to hold their attention) while reforming the courts and being the hero of distressed mothers oppressed by them — has to be handled promptly, and firmly. I was told first, I am just jealous of the (avatar’s) boobs, then that I “need to get laid” and have a man tell me to “shut the fvck up” with all my “feminist drivel.” Go search if you’re really curious, to learn what society should really be like. Women are to be seen (looked at), fvcked, and definitely not heard, except for the applause and approval part. What has this world come to, that some are speaking for themselves no!

Can’t say for sure, but possibly this “proud-of-it” misogyny may have had some say in the moderator’s previous marital experiences?

I returned a few comments “in kind.” At the bottom of the question, I asked, if you’re so smart how come in the six years this forum has been up, no one figured out that several of your key players were AFCC leaders, or that there’s a statewide effort out to “Change the Culture of Custody“?

Moderator’s reply then cut off the bottom of the post, reframed the question (again) to make himself look like the ethical and rational person in the conversation, ignored the part where I said, look I understand free speech, and let the “parade of gravatars” (challenging my comment that some were offensive) begin; just wanted to make the point. I replied, again quoting the part cut off, and as you can tell, at some point in time, FORUM participation becomes a waste of time. Really, what concerned me was driving others away from valid information, either because (as women), they don’t take to wading through the visuals and put-downs, or because as the forum is pretty much a Joe P. fan club (with some exceptions), speaking up might jeopardize membership. Sometimes I wonder whether / how many / if any of the posters are emotional extensions of this hero, or literally — like the visuals — electronic creations with the same IP (or street) address, but different user names. And if so, how sick is that?

I cannot give the full picture of this without breaking the forum rules, i.e., documenting a private-messaging exchange which was of quite different character than the public. However, apparently my presence on there was ruffling some feathers (cock’s, not hen’s), particularly by challenging false statements overtly. I replied another time, and threw in a sarcastic (and likewise crude) reference back at Joe, which is from what I understand by policy and example, a form of protected speech on the forum, and was told I am busting his nuts:

Joe, these are matters of life and death, and about whether or not children are safe in their homes or on visitation with others –and in such cases, despite all the BS folklore around, there’s no room for it.

(JOE, italics) Look, I’m in the information gathering and dispensing business. I don’t pay attention to avatars other than how amusing some are, while other match up nicely to a poster’s username. I like that my posters use avatars to express their artistic/creative side. It’s a non-issue unless you want to make it one for yourself. Let it go.

(etc.) You missed your calling as an attorney — derailing others, going into attack mode in hopes to shut down the topic, sarcasm, and a desire to control the conversation when challenged; you need to win, and at some level it’s just a game. (I just got my analysis, so there’s yours). Yeah, and all that:

I’ve not controlled one conversation here since I opened for business in 2005, other than keeping abusive posters in line and editing content that was either threatening to another person or the basis for a libel action against that poster and me. Other than that I let it fly as it flies. My other objective is to keep the place open 24/7 for nice people like you to cut my nuts off once in a while, which I appreciate.

__________________

“Justice doesn’t have to be fair, equitable or honorable – it just has to be justice”

Bold added for both comments, above. My phrase “control the conversation” (in the forum) had one meaning, and his reply (particularly with context removed) “control the conversation” (by removing the post, or posting privileges) is a context-switch. In context of the message exchanges, I was talking about the habit of reply to challenges of facts with comments deriding women as women — or me, as a woman. (we have never met or talked on the phone). This also serves to derail and curtail exchange about whether or not some assertion was true — or false.

Here’s my prior comment, preparatory to taking myself off there (the alternative would be doing battle regularly on falsehoods that i believe intentionally mislead parents so they do not follow actually get enlightened about the role of the fatherhood funding, child support diversions, and grants in the courts — identify conflicts of interest, or other leverage to expose fraud — and act on it.

Though I believe Joe knows better (i.e., has himself filed plenty of lawsuits and right-to-know letters), he has not, to date, been willing to acknowledge (1) the fatherhood factor, or (2) the role of the nonprofit trade associations which the exact players they are protesting (several of them) belong to, and which is how they tend to organize, in PA and elsewhere. And I believe the reason the fatherhood funding can’t be acknowledged is because it would admit sexism as a factor in the courts; and the AFCC, I don’t know — except that the information came from a female who challenged him.

I know I’m not going to hang around with people who are not hungry to keep learning, and so here’s my comment, preparatory to getting my behind off the forum, including with some disgust not so much at the T&A factor in the gravatars, at the dog-in-the-manger and egotism. Well, and do I want to support a group of people, particularly mothers, who haven’t put two and two together: Your leader, whose lead you are following, and help are so grateful are, hates women in the general, and being challenged in the particular — so if you expect assistance, just deal with it.

Trust me, “just acommodate it,” that’s a dead end!

Anyhow on the date below, I wrote; quoted segments (easier to see on the forum) in BLUE

(The 64/34 effect title relates to the child support incentives to keep a custody case up and running as long as possible)

FYI — I do NOT endorse what the rest of that forum (for example, on other days) is doing, namely, playing up the tragic and pathos angle and hoping this will bring about change; working alongside “Athena Phoenix’s” themes.

Anyone that wants to find out more about the nonprofits running the courts, and perhaps how to do something about stopping them in their tracks based on financial fraud (not bad custody decisions) will find some resources (not legal advice) there.

Wow, you’re all ready to engage here, when it comes to verbal put-downs, especially of women:

(me, then italic = Joe)

As moderator, you do not tolerate verbal ethnic slurs, but you do tolerate visual sexist ones, in the name of freedom of expression on the forum, and how dare I (exercising same right) comment on (immature) adult behavior on-line.

You need to get laid. Clearly, you don’t have a man in your life to tell you to shut the fvck up when your feminists drivel has you foaming at the mouth over an avatar of a woman who likely has nicer tits than you have. Get over it.

But I guess he just blew a wad on that topic, and went all limp when it came to the bottom half of my comment (after the feminist drivel), which is a little harder to make snide comments about — and which is a lot more relevant than any gravatars, as entertaining as this may be for Big Barney:*

Who’s babysitting whom here? – – –

I’m a continent away and seem to know more about who started parenting coordination in your state, where they came from, and how they meet up with each other, than anyone else, so far, on the post. I think that’s more a dog in the manger situation, perhaps — if it continues this way.

Failure to figure out and report on the nonprofits running the courts EARLIER in this game, how do you think 6 years of fighting and exposure on your forum missed that?

The parents Friday Court protest included mention of Arnold Shienvold, Ph.D., but it doens’t look like anyone did a background check on him. He’s AFCC, and AFCC as a group is about as close to a definition of family law as we know it (and as it’s changing, for the worse0 as one can get.

But now I’ve come reporting on the ones in your backyard, and connecting them to a nationwide strategy set decades ago, and I’m hearing “Politics is a contact sport here” like it means, you’re not up to it?

Not everyone can be you, and file suit after suit — and for those people, if there is any way to head off a case at the pass, then by all means, why not do so?

You need to get more honest with the people on this forum about resources outside Scranton and individual personalities — and at the state level PA which might stop Danielle Ross et al. Specifically the nonprofits active in the custody field, which can be used as front groups to launder or funnel money.

I’m no threat to your leadership, I don’t want people to “follow” me, I put out information, take it or leave it, and shelve the egos. But I am concerned when you are looked to for an example, and dismiss basic elements of the puzzle, of the problem.

RE (from different JP comment):

(Joe comment:)

Gender plays a small role in disposing of family court matters.

(me:) That’s not only false, it’s ridiculous. Can you prove that statement? What makes you — or any single person — the authority on family court matters?

That was a dog in a manger statement. You don’t believe this, so simply say it doesn’t exist or isn’t relevant.

However it is a role in why the hybrid creature called family courts (not criminal forum, not civil forum, but a counseling and psychology-based forum) exist to start with. Mental health practitioners and counselors weren’t competitive in the market place, so figured out, starting in S. Los Angeles Courthouse and Calif. Legislature, how to get the counties to pay them to counsel divorcing couples, and write this into law.

Gender is USED in the courts to justify federal funding.

It’s also a primary issue in the child support system, which diverts enforcement funds to promote fatherhood and marriage, i.e., there are enough people around who believe that women should be seen and not heard (case in point) to get this racket set up — and it’s a racketeering operation, but getting it passed definitely was helped by feminist backlash.

EVIDENCE:

Here’s the map of 17 Counties in PA that have Fatherhood Initiatives (2nd or 3rd time I’ve posted the link):

“The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare currently funds 20 Family Center- based Fatherhood Initiatives in the 17 counties shaded in the map above.”

(and so on — I posted more links showing the “fatherhood” grants, affecting custody matters as they are intended to….) and at the bottom of the same comment (again) linked to my blog, and to an on-line radio show which I’d been recommending people to — including with vivid, bold graphics — which explains the financial trail, or at least says it’s going to. As follows:

You have to register to do it on-line, so privacy is personal responsibility.

I’m the person who connected the host of the show with this forum, who then apparently got him — although he was late so a woman whose case he has espoused got on in his stead — on the show, after I also was.

If you’re salaciously or otherwise curious for the verbal karate of the exchange, go here:

*

Next thing you know — here is a referral to the same show (without acknowledging that this was my submission), and a further summary of “how it works” which — again — being pretty easy to read, narrated in local terms — contains no links to anything, makes several unsubstantiated (and false) claims, and again completely omits the role of the nonprofits in the courts. It also accuses a different judge of taking kickbacks (without identifying that he has) and cites a $20 million payment for judges — without showing the readers how he got that figure.

I’m going to respond to it on THIS forum (and place a link there), which I do have control over, and hopefully it will make a point about the importance of teaching others how to access their own information to draw their conclusions, rather than maintaining the position of authoritative summary — but including some wildly inaccurate, and excluding some very accurate, and relevant — information about how things work, and leaving behind a better educated readership.

The very links + quotes that make my post (and this blog) hard to read are actually the sources to proof. At least links — without the commentary if necessary — could’ve been placed in the post. They often are in his posts — but in this summary, they aren’t. Their presence — assuming they are relevant — lends credibility to the talk. However the ONLY link here — is one that I provided. In fact, I brought the radio show host to the attention of this blog and vice versa. I’ll do a “[*1, 2 (etc.)]” where have a reply.

JOE PILCHESKY POST:

This radio show is dedicated to Family Court tragedies across the country and discusses the layers upon layers of pay-to-play corruption that are the source of financing said corruption. CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO TONIGHT’S SHOW

Here’s the basic principle of how it works:

The federal govermment distributes millions upon millions to each state in grant money. A large portion of it is intended to go into the control of politicians who simply use the money as a private campaign war chest by redistributing it to businesses that support them, who then kickback 20% in cash. (That’s called a democracy these days) See white envelope. However, a chunk of about $20 million goes to the judiciary EVERY YEAR, also a government entity, don’t forget, where the money is, as stated above, distributed to cronies in businesses that serve Family Court, i.e., evaluators, guardians, coparenting coordinators and last, but not lease, mediators. [*1]

Intimately, our local players have been identified. [*2] A the top of the money heap is Judge Harhut (gets the biggest kickback)[*3]. Harhut organized this collosal scheme to keep the federal money flowing into our area, called an economic boost, except only a few get boosted, like Harhut.[*4]

Under Harhut, the scheme has been working for years something like this: The judges review a custody case for any sign of conflict; “Ahh, there is it, two people that hate one anothter and they have kids. Perfect.”, said Judge Harhut. Harhut, and all other judges in Family Court, then decide that it’s in the best interests of children that they have have a thief, I mean, a guardian, so he orders Danielle Ross to be the Guardian per family for $300 per parent up front and $50 an hour thereafter.

Ross interviews the parents and the kids and determines that these people in divorce detest the sight of one another, so they need an evaluation. Ross also inspects the house for $100.00, or has some crony friend do it, unqualified, of course. Enter Dr. Refice, evaluator ( and others like him) who affirm what Ross concluded, which was that the parents are nuts and need to try mediation to resolve incidents of knife throwing and drop kicks to the groin in front of the kids. Mediation is done by Tony LiBassi, who gives a few free samples (actually paid for by federal grants)[*5] and then hammers the parents on a pay-per-visit fee until even he can’t get them to put he knives down and recommends co-parenting. Co-parenting is run by Ann Marie Termini, who is only to happy to rape, I mean charge, parents $50 an hour for eternity to teach them that knife -throwing should not be done in front of the kids.

This whole process, of course, is very expensive, because the longer it goes on the nuttier it drives the parents and the plan has thus been executed to perfection, because the grant money is to be used for helping people who are nuts and in Family Court. Many parents cannot afford it, so that’s where the federal money comes into play. These professional serices simply send a voucher to the County Controller and the cycle of pay-to-play is completed.[*6]

People who can afford to pay are not given a free pass. In they go, like cattle having mad-cow disease, into the “system”, where they spend more money on court ordered services than surviving, resulting in losing their homes because they can’t pay their mortgages.

That’s the general idea of Harhut’s scheme, and that’s why a money/power whore like Danielle Ross has been given 789 cases to handle. Another ugly player is Brenda Kobal, lawyer and guardian, who’s only too happy to slam it to you. But, Ross appears to be the trigger in the mechanism. She trips the first professional services domino as the guardian and keeps control of keeping the families in crisis by blowing lawyers, like Brian Cali and Joe Campolieto, who file contempt petition after contempt petition against parents who are pushed beyond their emotional limits when denied access to their own flesh and blood.

It’s going to take a lot of RTK letters to get to the bottom layers, but some have been sent out with more to go.

Stay out of the system. Get a private agreement. [*7]

This is a good basic summary, but it’s in the parts that are NOT accurate, or incomplete — where unless people can — and know how to – actually follow the advice in the last statement: “Stay out of the system,” this summary, generally speaking, is the picture. But it completely omits how the players get organized, and is vague enough that no one, other than the reference to “a lot of RTK (FOIA- Right To Know) letters” has a clue what to do, where to look, what their actual legal rights are, or their judges’, GAL’s, custody evaluators’, or mediators’ rights, responsibilities, and limits are. In the process, it whips up some antagonism (not saying it’s undeserved) and accuses of a judge of taking kickbacks — when I don’t see any evidence this particular judge has. i don’t like what he’s doing, and in fact there is paperwork posted that he brought in his crony (Danielle Ross, who is a local in the area, deeds show she was a notary public before GAL, I think it was her anyhow) on by simply writing a judicial order! Not passing it by the taxpayers, city council, and citing no statute to justify burdening people with this (evidently).

IF the point is to stop the corruption, one must first identify it — the corruption in respect to what is the standard. If this is shown, then others can do the same work, locally and elsewhere. Joe’s leadership and aggressive qualities (turned against those who oppose them) also come with legal savvy (plenty of suits being filed, and brought to the appeal level show on the courts) and somehow the ability to stay housed — well, until the recent PFA from his wife — and fed meantime; which is something that a lot of parents IN the system, as it says, can barely (or sometimes NOT) do.

I am not leading this group of people, and they do not know me — however, as a concerned US citizen who’s watched this happen (and experienced similar situations) across the nation — because I talk to people from different states, and get my behind on this internet to look things up, etc., interact also where ppossible in person with leaders of various groups — I am sad if an opportunity such as Lackawanna has just seen (FBI raiding the courthouse in response to exposure of corruption) is squandered, plus energy wasted on the ill will and name-calling part, rather than channeling some of it into the look it up part. (IT seems from the forum that people do get out and attend their local council meetings, a WIDE variety of topics are tracked on it, not just the custody ones. However, the forum shows visits — and the Doherty Deceit threads on the courts are getting some serious traffic.

Also, against all odds and common sense (yesterday), I started a topic on it about the nonprofits, which is here, as an “FYI” for anyone who may eventual “get” it. For those who have some patience, a newsletter from the online radio talk show “64/34 effect” is VERY worth reading: look for the black background and white print. It’s an education in itself, in one page (with links) and pulling it together (better than I do). I did this because what ties the co-parenting, FBI raid (GAL-related) and Kids4Kash (aka get out and protest on the street corner) threads together — or should — is the nonprofits that crank out these situations to start with. They are the FUNDING COVERUP link, and the motivation to keep it up! Plus, as half of them aren’t even operating legally, that’s a vulnerable area for shut-down. So, I started this topic on the same forum:

The Forum or Message Board — which is supported by Sparklit company — is a link off the website, ‘FORUMS,” and seems more active than the actual site. However, don’t forget the link “CASES” and look at some of them also, including the one involving the ACLU helping keep the forum open, and especially this one:

Plaintiff submits that The Lackawanna County Commissioners, Ken McDowell (County Controller) and Judge Thomas Munley have acted beyond the scope of their authority as follows: 1) By allowing…

ROSS is the GAL. This case takes information affecting the FAMILY (Domestic Relations) court — and handles it where it should be — as a FINANCIAL matter in a different subject jurisdiction. His standing is as a taxpayer. Any fool should know not to try to handle the matter IN family court, which is psychology-based. Which tells me, this guy is no fool:

Plaintiff submits that The Lackawanna County Commissioners, Ken McDowell (County Controller) and Judge Thomas Munley have acted beyond the scope of their authority as follows: 1) By allowing Danielle Ross to collect bi-monthly payments of $1,538.33 since September of2008 2) By allowing Danielle Ross, as a private entity, to occupy prime office space on County property for free and to access free office supplies, equipment and secretarial resources.

The question is, if there are followers, at what point are they going to wise up? Here’s a little more detail from the case summary (but paperwork appears to be viewable on-line). This is at the heart of who AFCC is and what they started back in Los Angeles County. Alas, Scrantonians are not going to be understanding that if they read only commentary talking about personalities, from another personality. Either they’ll need to learn it themselves, or find someone who will lay down some footprints — maybe a little exhortation — which is where, if anywhere, I’ll come in. Look at this — it took resources, time, initiative and follow-through to put together a suit like this one, and I appreciate it. Is there pay for this work? I doubt it, and unless there’s plans in the future to turn it towards income, or public office, I’m going to call this what it is — public service, voluntary. A good standard to copy:

7. Ross has received, between September 11, 2008 and June 14, 2011, a total of sixty-seven checks in the amount of$1583.33, totaling $106,081.10.

8. Exhibit “C”, the Invoices, indicates clearly that Ross has been paid for GAL services above and beyond the $1,583.33 bi-monthly charged by Ross.

9. Ross has never had a GAL services contract with Lackawanna County and no such contract exists to this day.

10. Ross has never had a GAL services contract with the Court of Common Pleas or Family Court and no contract exists to this day.

11. Ross is not an employee of Lackawanna County or Family Court.

If she’s NEITHER an independent contractor NOR an employee, than the only justification for her being in business to mess with parents is: (a) a Judge ordered it and/or (b) the public was asleep and not alert enough to know how this happens, or have been so intimidated and overwhelmed by this AND other local corruption (like I hear a 38% increase in property tax upcoming?) (I understand government in the area is a major if not the primary employer, i.e., fear of retaliation costing jobs, houses, etc. maybe a factor) — that it doesn’t occur to them to demand an explanation — what is this person doing here? and why should our taxes be funding those services? In other words, they’ve been cowed, and it’s not in the normal mindset to go, as my gravatar says, Kick Ass and Take Names. No one is thinking in terms of really challenging where the challenge actually matters — in the funding. After all, it’s about the funding to start with, certainly not about helping anyone (particularly not kids).

12. Ross’s office occupies prime office space on the first floor of Family Court at 200 Adams Ave., Scranton, PA. (Like Marv Bryer said of another entity in Los Angeles, over 10 years ago)

13. Ross pays no compensation for occupying prime office space on the fIrst floor of the Annex Building located at 200 Adams Ave, Scranton, PA, 18503, where she functions as an independent contractor working in the capacity of a GAL.

14. Ross, as an independent contractor, pays no compensation to the County for the use of utilities or various office equipment and materials relating to her occupation of an office on the first floor of Family Court.

15. Ross, as an independent contractor, uses county-paid staff to assist her in operating her independent business as a GAL, in particular, she uses Sue Mcllwee as her secretary and personal assistant to take phone calls, make phone calls, take messages, mail correspondence, receive correspondence, make home inspections, discuss GAL cases with clients of Ross and other assorted secretarial duties.

Docket:

11-CV-4759

This literally is THE pattern of the family court system, and inherent to it. Good deal!

He posted the information received from his Right To Know inquiry, Oct. 3, 2011. Images are intermixed above, but viewable on the forum. Catch ‘em while you can, particularly the hotel voucher to pay for a conference — which turns out to be a 2009 Brooklyn Conference from National Association of Counsel for Children, where Termini (this person) presented along with the then-presiding Judge Chester Harhut, and the GAL that has everyone so upset, Danielle Ross. I posted that info on the forum also.

(INCIDENTALLY, despite no contract, etc. in the nonprofit NACC — her membership ID – besides containing almost no other information — list her as “Lackawanna Family Court.”)

The point being is, Joe is obviously good at getting the information and getting it posted — and this is rare. I know people who write “RTKs” (or, I think sometimes called a ‘FOIA” -Freedom of Information Act request) and who understand that this is one way to find out what’s happening on their case. I have not run across almost anyone — in a public forum for either gender and not just specific to family court crisis (which on-line groups can get pretty inbred…..) — who simply posted the images for God and everyone to see. Then whoever provided them forgot to redact SS#. Rather than calling him and saying “take the SS# off!” Termini then simply filed a suit to get them off, which was also documented.

This is why I’d bother to give the forum the time of day. Because it’s different. What a shame that means wading through the misogyny as well, and not just for me. In a workplace I wonder if that’d be grounds for harassment. (I blogged this earlier:). Look at how the Good ol’ boys handled it:

TRENTON, N.J. (CN) – Good ol’ boys at the top levels of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce habitually get drunk on the job and sexually harass women who work for them, and when a new president, a woman, fired one of the chief harassers, the boys got together and found him “a plum and prestigious position in Governor Chris Christie’s Office,” then fired the president, and a vice president who complained of the harassment, the former VP says.

Yep, there are likely to be some cultural changes when women come on the scene. Then men really get organized to protect each other! But she didn’t fold:

Carol Gabel sued the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and four of its top officers in a discrimination and harassment complaint in Mercer County Court. The individual defendants are senior vice president Dana Egreckzy, president Thomas Bracken, Chairman of the Board Jeffrey Scheininger, and former Chairman of the Board Dennis Bone.
Gabel says she worked at the Chamber from 199 until she was fired on March 16 this year.
“The sexual harassment of plaintiff grew out of the ‘Old Boy’ network and ‘culture of intoxication’

ANYHOW, I am not a local, and didn’t feel I had to take that sh*t silently, or without response, as just part of the scenery, civic advocacy or no civic advocacy. What it’s packaged in matters. (I do think the comment that most got to me, however, was “the federal grants are not gender-specific.” That took it from beyond just personal attack to false reporting, and derailing the RELEVANT truth to the family court issues, which has to include the fatherhood funding, among other things. It’s a HUGE piece!

. . . CONTINUED ON THE NEXT POST . . .

– after some introduction & a new development

Actually, it looks like I’ve interwoven them too much (footnote factor) –

so from here on down is actually DUPLICATED on the next post — with update material on the top of the post. Sorry about that ….

FOOTNOTES responding to the post in blue about “this is how it works, above”

COMMENTARY on Joe Pilchesky’s SUMMARY (in full, above):

The federal govermment distributes millions upon millions to each state in grant money. A large portion of it is intended to go into the control of politicians who simply use the money as a private campaign war chest by redistributing it to businesses that support them, who then kickback 20% in cash. (That’s called a democracy these days) See white envelope. However, a chunk of about $20 million goes to the judiciary EVERY YEAR, also a government entity, don’t forget, where the money is, as stated above, distributed to cronies in businesses that serve Family Court, i.e., evaluators, guardians, coparenting coordinators and last, but not lease, mediators. [*1]

Intimately, our local players have been identified. [*2] A the top of the money heap is Judge Harhut (gets the biggest kickback)[*3]. Harhut organized this collosal scheme to keep the federal money flowing into our area, called an economic boost, except only a few get boosted, like Harhut.[*4]

Picking this apart is no doubt annoying (or whatever). If this is concise summary — and half true — then with that error rate in any other field, the truck goes off the road, the airplane could crash (radar askew, etc.) or simply no one else could learn to drive the truck, straight or crooked — which is my main point. So what’s with the dumbing it down to the point that anyone who wants to check facts would have to “take it on faith” or go figure it out from scratch themselves? I thought the idea here was to “expose corruption” AND do something about it.

In order to do that, a few tools might be nice, in the form of hyperlinks. Hyperlinks are a pain in the neck to include, and break up the text — but they ARE hyperlinks and as such can back up what one says, and let others have the means to see if you’re full of truth (or at least something some other source agrees with), or “full of it.”

I reply:

[*1]. First Paragraph: Sentence 1: That’s one (not the only) source of grant money going to the courts and affecting them. Also federal money goes in part direct to the county, including Lackawanna County. I already posted the link to a federal database and what money is going to Lackawanna County related to their problems, on the forum.

Sentence 2: This is speculation, subjective, and alleging kickbacks, plus amount of kickbacks (20%). Readers are to take it on faith. In short, Sentence 2 just derailed the car that might’ve actually NAMED the federal funding, found out HOW it was distributed, and as taxpayer or citizen, once this was known, put together a protest about its use to the legislature — not the courts!

Sentence 3: “See white envelope” — Cute statement, but specifically, where? If you show it to me, or show a very similar situation where a white envelope was found, that might help. I’ve posted some, Others know some, but as far as Scranton is concerned, although they FEEL there’s a white envelope, until they FIND it, they have NOTHING to go to court with — at least on the matter of kickbacks, and if it’s systemic, that’s RICO and could clean up a whole lot of courthouse problems !

Sentence 4: “A chunk of about $20 million goes to the judiciary every year” — he’s talking grants here, and “the judiciary” is a broad enough term, I’m going to say — Show it. WHere’d you get that figure from? Or is that ex cathedra? If it’s exactly $20 million, still — the point is, says how, and show it, or at least point to a source. This man, again, has filed lawsuits and knows how to produce evidence to support a point. Does he need to be top dog, or is he willing to train others? Then make the habit of showing where you got the insight! It’s not about you — it’s about helping others navigate the system. SHOW and tell, don’t just tell!

From HHS (Only) — just checking, I typed in “judiciary” and limited it to PA, 2011: Details show since 2005 one kind, since 2006 three kinds of grants:

This is grants — not contracts, payrolls, etc. Since The TAGGS database was so nice to actually give me a DUNS#, and since it’s simple to do, I hopped over to USASpending.gov and piped in that DUNS#, not selecting a year (at all) and typed it in. this shows only 6 grant actions totalling (all years) $769,197 — apparently the HHS database has a negative entry representing a 2006 grant which is the difference.

And in case we still think that the Judiciary Courts of the Commonwealth of PA are only in to matters of justice, the details in this grant series speak differently, and tell what “Court Improvement” means:

In fact, I just ran HHS for PA for the year 2011 — and it’s a nice snapshot, showing how very interested the State is in children (especially studying them, it seems) and families, parent education, and pharmaceuticals among other things. DPW gets the largest grant — over $15 BILLION, and in order to prevent domestic violence and rape, by comparison a pittance (assuming that’s actually what these organizations do. i’ve expressed my doubts on other posts);

PCADV (per DUNS# @ usaspending.gov) has received $12 million so far, 30 grants: 10 from DOJ, 20 from HHS, starting year 2007). The DOJ ones have a variety of purposes, worth looking at, either Technical Assistance (OVW source), Congressionally recommended (probably a VAWA grant), grant to help local DV agencies, and grants to coalitions series. The point being, (see below0 when it comes under CFDA 93.592 (see below) — notice that Prevention and Services/Shelters/Discretionary — means that the shelters are sharing forces with the educators. Guess who probably gets the short end of the stick in a world stuck on conferences and training everyone?

SORRY — of blog topic, but I couldn’t resist getting in this comment: Look what it (says it) does, and who it is:

Since 1993 the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV) has been a comprehensive source of information for those wanting to educate themselves and help others on the many issues related to domestic violence.

I do recognize the term, but as there are so many resource centers running around, who knows which one I was thinking of?

As there cannot be a tax return on an organization that just started in 2011 (yet), when it comes out, I look forward to finding out how much of the $1,500,000 went to setting up the website and for which contractor. Oh — I almost forgot — who’s the Exec Director, what’s their pay and how many other boards do they sit on?

Here’s what the State of Pennsylvania Corporations search (secretary of state) has to say on this:

In fact, in incorporated on 4/11/2011 as a nonprofit, and does not appear to have an EIN# yet (per PA or national search). That’s a nice office building, too (I looked it up) different from the PCADV street address also.

Non-Profit (Non Stock) – Domestic – Information

Entity Number:

4023857

Status:

Active

Entity Creation Date:

4/11/2011

State of Business.:

PA

Registered Office Address:

3605 Vartan Way / Suite 101
Harrisburg PA 17110
Dauphin

Mailing Address:

No Address

BUT — let’s say, on the outside, that this group really DID exist as some sort of “it” (Other than in just people’s minds– clearly if it existed as an organization, it was either not in PA or — as a project of PCADV — under some other name, which eliminates it as an “it,” or out of state and oNLY privately funded — those are a real stretch to make the claim some how legit…) let’s say it did start in 1993. . .

As such — and PA being pretty close to Washington, D.C. — this organization’s job is to make sure it does NOT educate anyone on Congress having passed welfare reform (1996), and what impact this has on the family law system, and to “Technically assist” women going into that system what they are up against. Or enough about the family courts for any woman leaving violence going into them, to defend herself, or for example, look up who’s paying whom with some nice fatherhood and marriage promotion funding – on her case. To not update her on anything since 2001 (faith-based), 2002 (California NOW Family COurt Report of 2002 has PLENTY to say on what they’re up against), or in fact to consume intellectual material outside DV experts ON DV. As such, PCADV at least has done an excellent job of not biting the hand that feeds them 2 out of 3 grants (PCADV), and didn’t do squat, that I can see, to prevent the kids from getting sold into camps in Luzerne County, or “outing” anyone selling kids into foster care, or in short anything at all that might have helped MY children and hundreds of others (if not thousands) across the country, once they tangled with custody matters.

More narrative:

Today, through its key initiatives and special projects, such as VAWnet, Women of Color Network and the Domestic Violence Awareness Project, NRCDV works tirelessly to improve community response to domestic violence and, ultimately, prevent its occurrence. Our comprehensive technical assistance, training and resource development are just a few examples of the many ways in which NRCDV broadly serves those dedicated to ending domestic violence in relationships and communities.

THE COMMUNITY AND FEDERAL RESPONSE HAS BEEN BASICALLY BACKLASH AND TO BRING IN THE FAITH COMMUNITIES TO WAGE WAR AGAINST THE NON-CRIME OF “DIVORCE” AND, IN EFFECT, TO — LIKE CHURCHES DO — GIVE PEOPLE IN THE SAME BUSINESS (BASICALLY MEDIA CAMPAIGNS, WEBSITES, PUBLIC RELATIONS, CONFERENCES, MEMBERSHIP-DUES BASED NONPROFITS, AND TEACHING THEIR CRONIES HOW TO KEEP THE GRANTS COMING – – – WHICH THE FATHERS’ RIGHTS GROUPS ALSO DO — A WIDE BERTH, AND LET THE PEOPLE CAUGHT IN THE GAP FEND FOR THEMSELVES. THIS DV MOVEMENT DROP-KICKS WOMEN IN THE CUSTODY COURTS, WHERE SOME OF THEM ARE MURDERED! WHILE OBEYING A COURT ORDER MANDATING VISITATION. OR, (Michelle Fournier, Seal Beach, CA) while at work or (Tonya McCall, Oakland, CA) in a church parking lot AND (INCLUDING THANKS TO ME) WORD OF THIS SELL-OUT IS GETTING OUT.

I DO NOT MEAN TO DISRESPECT THE ORIGINAL WORK, WHICH WAS NEEDED. BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE A SELF-STYLED EXPERT ON A TOPIC, THEN YOU NEED TO KEEP UP WITH EVENTS AND REPORT ACCURATELY, AND AT LEAST 50% OF THE TRUTH. DV AGENCIES, IN THIS MATTER, DO NOT!

We encourage you to take a closer look and explore our many programs and initiatives as a resource to you in your domestic violence intervention and prevention efforts.

(the money is in the setup and maintenance of “resource organizations.” It’s not in actually stopping domestic violence, or saving people from it. Let’s call this assault & battery, rape, harassment, interference with work or violation of civil rights of an individual on the basis of gender or close relationship — and get on with life without the specialized jargon that half the world– and most of the religious world, which is primarily male-dominated, although female-supported — isn’t going to accept anyhow.)

AND:

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE & TRAINING…

Since accepting its first call in 1994, the NRCDV has responded to over 51,000 requests for technical assistance (TA) on a broad range of topics. We both sponsor training directly, often through our key initiatives and special projects, and NRCDV staff and consultants serve as a key training resource for coalitions, federal agencies and others needing presenters with particular expertise for conferences and meetings.

Well, I would like to see the phone logs, minus the inbound numbers, for privacy. I’d also like to see the phone bill, service providers, all that. However, if the calls began in 1994, then divide 51,000 by 17 years, and tell me who followed up to say whether the calls saved a life or not. Or whether the organizations people were referred to did, either. I say this havingi made plenty of calls myself, to a national hotline based in Texas. THIS group is servicing the servers. (“GRrrr..!”)

Here’s the “ABOUT US” page which shows that, as to the 1990 date, this NRCDV actually was an HHS project housed in PCADV. The lesson is important, and explains WHY it says NOTHING about the parallel sets of grants (from HHS) Specifically designed to undermine mother’s rights in custody hearings, which are, usually, going to occur after any action is taken on domestic violence. Through the 2nd prong of these HHS pincers, the Marriage/Fatherhood programming, what goes up WILL come down.

(Habitually no DV agency is going to tell mothers about, and most don’t have follow-up enough to find out about themselves at the local level?) — it’ll even out, and possibly there may even be some kids available to traffic through the foster care system, which (see recent post) is quite profitable. Like natural parents, there are good foster parents, and nasty foster parents, and then there are those that helped provide their kids to Larry King and friends (Franklin Coverup) to be flown around, tortured, used as sex objects, and psychological programming experimentation material.).

As it says:

ABOUT NRCDV…

It is the mission of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence to improve societal and community responses to domestic violence and, ultimately, prevent its occurrence.

Since 1993, the Pennsylvania Coalitions Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) has received core funding to operate the NRCDV from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, with supplemental funds from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to support VAWnet, our national online resource center, and other private and public grants. The NRCDV employs a multidisciplinary staff and supports a wide range of projects to address the complex challenges domestic violence poses to families, institutions, communities, and governments.

The NRCDV’s technical assistance and training not only responds to requests from the field, but also anticipates needs for information and guidance around emerging policy and practice issues.

Does this include the concept that to truly stop abuse by men against women, it’s essential to work with faith-based operations (who historically do nothing about that) to help ensure that every little girl or by affected by violence has a Daddy in her life, who will be programmed to understand that if he is NOT in her life, she is at risk of being abused by someone (besides himself), etc.? Because I can point to the Child Welfare section of HHS and document that this is about the level of the reasoning in it. In fact may already have, on this blog. Look up “Boot Camp for New Dads”

The NRCDV develops and disseminates comprehensive and specialized information packets that address a range of domestic violence issues, and publishes related innovative intervention and model prevention practices, protocols and policies.

In 1995, the NRCDV created VAWnet, our comprehensive and easily accessible collection of full-text, searchable electronic materials and resources on domestic violence, sexual violence and related issues. The National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) serves as our key collaborative partner for this project. VAWnet currently receives over 3,000 visitors per day and these visitors download over 1,900 files a day. A significant number of the most frequently downloaded documents are those produced by NRCDV and NSVRC staff and consultants. The NRCDV utilizes three primary strategies in its work: technical assistance and training, development of resource materials, and special projects.

NARRATIVE INTERJECTION:

This may sound like “overkill” — but I know that mothers with abuse in the background are now being referred, sometimes, to this site when they have a custody case. I am a person and no attorney — but I’ll share that as a voracious reader, and firm believer in the justice system (which I no longer am), I devoured and scrounged, printed out, and shared a LOT of the information from VAWNet, about DV (it did match my experience that’s for sure) and attempted to relate this to the family law system. However, the MISSING LINK was WHY that system is habitually deaf dumb, and blind — to the DV issue overall! As a whole! I learned nothing from this about the history and origin of the family courts — in fact, to learn that, i simply got curious and started googling. It was by happenstance — after a particularly dishonest police report — that I ever connected with NOW to read their Family Court Report (of 2002).

Because no other voices — no DV nonprofit voices in particular — ever echoed, validated, or even, for the most part, made a stink about this information (talking about the hotlines and support groups I felt the need to consult after the second assault began — and that was the custody assault) — any of the information that I blog. And some of the leadership that put it together was even in the same geographic area ! (Northern California).

If this information is utterly useless to any woman experience violence who also IS a mother, or had a mother who was also being assaulted — then why are we paying to distribute it? Why are such people being given train the trainer privileges to the local DV entities? Huh?

Let me repeat: You can not only lose your children in a custody case, depending on the severity of the situation you left, or to what extent it has escalated — you, or they, and/or others, could literally die. If you, as a mother — flee WITH the children, you can be (depending on your ex and his motivations) can be hauled back and thrown into court and the kids given to your ex-batterer. That happens. Or, alternately, you would have to forfeit (that’s called sacrifice) your children and custody rights most likely, including visitation, and then you would likely be hunted down and forced to pay the former torturer (FYI, some relationships do rise to that level, either before separation, or after the ex realizes “What a Friend We have in [family court].”

This is why I call the family law system a “clear and present danger” to the community overall, and why my motto (see top of blog) insists it is NOT a private matter. It’s essentially a JOKE and the joke is on the taxpayers, and on families. So each person has to figure out their best way through, and hopefully collectively more of us will figure out to at least see further down the road than the DV resource centers — which are actually HHS Control Centers to dominate the conversation around DOmestic Violence, at some level — and determine how to boycott the products. Or at least survive! And to live with one’s own conscience for doing so sometimes at a very, very heavy cost to one’s children.

END NARRATIVE INTERJECTION (WELL, THIS WHOLE BLOG IS PRETTY MUCH A “NARRATIVE INTERJECTION,” BUT AT LEAST, TO THAT ONE…..)

BACK TO OVERALL GRANTS FROM PENNSYLVANIA and Mr. PILCHESKY’s SUMMARY. I was talking about Grants to the Judiciary… –well, he had been, as follows (again):

The federal govermment distributes millions upon millions to each state in grant money. A large portion of it is intended to go into the control of politicians who simply use the money as a private campaign war chest by redistributing it to businesses that support them, who then kickback 20% in cash. (That’s called a democracy these days) See white envelope. However, a chunk of about $20 million goes to the judiciary EVERY YEAR, also a government entity, don’t forget, where the money is, as stated above, distributed to cronies in businesses that serve Family Court, i.e., evaluators, guardians, coparenting coordinators and last, but not lease, mediators. [*1]

Intimately, our local players have been identified. [*2] A the top of the money heap is Judge Harhut (gets the biggest kickback)[*3]. Harhut organized this collosal scheme to keep the federal money flowing into our area, called an economic boost, except only a few get boosted, like Harhut.[*4]

This is a Healthy Marriage Grantee, a nice religious one, I’ve blogged it that (among other things) helps market curriculum from another healthy marriage grantee….That should counter the DV material nicely:

As a matter of fact, the money that is distributed to cronies in Family Court does NOT come just from the feds to the state to the judiciary to the cronies, and I showed already one set of grants that went from HHS to an organization providing supervised visitation, locally. etc. …. The money supporting the MEDIATORS (in particular) is the Access/Visitation money (at a minimum) and comes to the Welfare Department — not the Judiciary. It’s administered federally through the HHS Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) which is not the Judiciary. Here are the grants. I’ve posted about the A/V grants on the forum. Notice how far back they go. This is almost 2012, and so far, no mention of these grants in public discussion about their impact on custody cases. yet they are intended to increase noncustodial parenting time, and allow the head of HHS to run social science demonstration projects on people. And that’s just a fraction of funding to the courts. MANY programs relating to the courts appear to have ties to the DPW….

Program Office

Grantee Name

Award Number

Action Issue Date

CFDA Program Name

Award Class

Award Activity Type

Award Action Type

Sum of Actions

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0001PASAVP

08/22/2000

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

UNKNOWN

$ 315,791

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0001PASAVP

09/14/2009

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

OTHER REVISION

$- 50

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0101PASAVP

08/23/2001

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

UNKNOWN

$ 315,791

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0101PASAVP

09/14/2009

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

OTHER REVISION

$- 1,650

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0201PASAVP

08/06/2002

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

UNKNOWN

$ 333,852

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0201PASAVP

09/14/2009

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

OTHER REVISION

$- 907

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0301PASAVP

09/11/2003

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

UNKNOWN

$ 333,852

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0301PASAVP

09/14/2009

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

OTHER REVISION

$- 975

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0401PASAVP

09/15/2004

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

NEW

$ 341,055

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0501PASAVP

09/14/2005

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

NEW

$ 341,055

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0601PASAVP

09/19/2006

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

NEW

$ 344,486

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0701PASAVP

07/20/2007

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

NEW

$ 329,739

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0801PASAVP

01/30/2008

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

NEW

$ 327,030

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

0901PASAVP

12/23/2008

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

NEW

$ 322,294

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

1001PASAVP

11/25/2009

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

NEW

$ 344,452

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

1101PASAVP

10/08/2010

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

NEW

$ 322,677

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

1201PASAVP

11/22/2011

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

NEW

$ 326,925

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

9701PASAVP

05/31/1998

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

UNKNOWN

$ 356,165

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

9701PASAVP

02/21/2003

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

UNKNOWN

$- 60,683

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

9801PASAVP

09/01/1998

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

UNKNOWN

$ 356,165

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

9801PASAVP

02/24/2003

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

UNKNOWN

$- 42,936

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

9901PASAVP

08/16/1999

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

UNKNOWN

$ 315,791

OCSE

PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE

9901PASAVP

02/25/2003

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs

CLOSED-ENDED

SOCIAL SERVICES

UNKNOWN

$- 39,558

Results 1 to 23 of 23 matches.

Page 1 of 1

[*2] “Intimately our local players have been identified.” Partially true. Not all the players were identified, and those that are in the game have not been fully identified — i.e., their association allegiances, their contracts, and etc. The judges’ statements of conflict of interest, to my knowledge, are not in discussion. That’s a critical element. And it’s NOT JUST ABOUT the local players, even though it’s a nice handle to get people to focus on.

[*3]. A the top of the money heap is Judge Harhut (gets the biggest kickback).

Harhut is not at the top of the heap (depending on which portion of the heap one is looking at). He is probably not even king of the local hill. It takes a team to pull off anything, and team members are subject to each other’s (a) cooperation and (b) collective secrecy.

That Harhut gets ANY kickback is speculation or hearsay til proved, and that any alleged kickback is the biggest one can’t be even shown til several are found. Statements and summaries like this don’t do almost anything to help anyone find out IF a kickback has been involved to start with. I suspect The Hon. Harhut is by now accustomed as judge to being talked about in all kinds of ways, none of which are going to affect his being judge, his salary, and certainly not putting a potential kickback in any immediate jeopardy — at least not from this crowd! As such, the statement is bluster. I don’t think JOE is all bluster — he can get the goods when he chooses to, or finds the time to — but in this case, has not.

[*4] Harhut organized this collosal scheme to keep the federal money flowing into our area, called an economic boost, except only a few get boosted, like Harhut.

False. Harhut copied a scheme which has been used in other counties and other states, and got the idea from AFCC, which he is a member of. He had help from Changing the Culture of Custody Initiative, and so forth. And the money coming from it is not only federal — it is also, let’s not forget, a scheme to help cronies (at least) get payments from private parties, called parents. Moreover, if a parent is put out of the house through all this, that’s real estate available to someone else.

As to why the scheme, I’m not a mind-reader, but I DID read some of his talk on AFCC gazette, bio on the Child SUpport Speakers Bureau, and quite a few other places, which I believe are a clue to his thinking. See this blog (also posted on the Doherty Deceit Forum, early on). He’s an AFCC member, and in a position of power. This is — to tell the truth – what they do. Being judges, eventually, they move into an area, or take charge as presiding judge, and bring on the cronies. They also tend to push for “Unified Family Court” systems based on there is such an overload of divorce and custody cases.

The overload is in part repeat business because of prior poor decisions, or perhaps it’s an indicator that marriage and family aren’t all they are cracked up to be. Another reason for the overload is that domestic violence issues — serious criminal activity in the form of what any such REPEAT behavior, and/or SEVERE behavior would be if a stranger, particularly a MALE stranger, did it to someone else, particularly but not only another MALE — are being reframed as “family matters.”

That is what the family law system exists for, and it is where such criminally minded and overentitled people go, or are hauled, to the distress of many and the profit of some. And to justify further breakdown of the concept, language and even IDEA of “justice” as a process — into the concept of Courts as Problem-solvers. In some areas, courthouses are going up (Kentucky). In others, they are going under (California) causing major strife in the judiciary. But each new crop of attorneys in family law are being encouraged to view themselves as the helpers, the people with the answers, and heroes.

Some of them are. To the extent that they are, I will suggest that these people help tear down THAT building and drive business into some venue where there’s a shot at justice — civil or criminal, to be specific. As I showed in a recent post, just because a professional is a woman — or even if she is feminist — that doesn’t mean she is going to be honest or fair, when a woman comes before her in a custody matter. Anyone who is engaging in parent coordination has a serious attitude problem, in my view.

A recent news article in the SF Bay area dealt with more females than males in the State college system. You’d think the sky had fallen. There have been 100% more males than females in the college and university system for centuries — MANY centuries. Women couldn’t sing in cathedral choirs. They couldn’t inherit property, they didn’t own their own children and in the US, they couldn’t vote until the 1900s. (If they’d have had the vote before 1913, I wonder whether the income tax would’ve passed…) It’s not the end of the world if some of that changes. only of worlds that are psychologically and emotionally dependent on dominating the woman in one’s life and in the religious and public spheres too.

Speaking of which — and this is for the Doherty Deceit audiences, however large or small it may be (lots of views, but usually not many at a time. It has so many hits per day because of so many threads going at once…..).

The basic circus, once it’s local, does seem to go about like he says and I really like about it is the tone. Someone has to keep talking like this — because, based on what they write and do — this is one pompous bunch!:

Under Harhut, the scheme has been working for years something like this: The judges review a custody case for any sign of conflict; “Ahh, there is it, two people that hate one anothter and they have kids. Perfect.”, said Judge Harhut. Harhut, and all other judges in Family Court, then decide that it’s in the best interests of children that they have have a thief, I mean, a guardian, so he orders Danielle Ross to be the Guardian per family for $300 per parent up front and $50 an hour thereafter.

Ross interviews the parents and the kids and determines that these people in divorce detest the sight of one another, so they need an evaluation. Ross also inspects the house for $100.00, or has some crony friend do it, unqualified, of course. Enter Dr. Refice,*** evaluator ( and others like him) who affirm what Ross concluded, which was that the parents are nuts and need to try mediation to resolve incidents of knife throwing and drop kicks to the groin in front of the kids. Mediation is done by Tony LiBassi, who gives a few free samples (actually paid for by federal grants)[*5] and then hammers the parents on a pay-per-visit fee until even he can’t get them to put he knives down and recommends co-parenting. Co-parenting is run by Ann Marie Termini, who is only to happy to rape, I mean charge, parents $50 an hour for eternity to teach them that knife -throwing should not be done in front of the kids.

This whole process, of course, is very expensive, because the longer it goes on the nuttier it drives the parents and the plan has thus been executed to perfection, because the grant money is to be used for helping people who are nuts and in Family Court. Many parents cannot afford it, so that’s where the federal money comes into play. These professional serices simply send a voucher to the County Controller and the cycle of pay-to-play is completed.[*6]

Possibly access/visitation funds are involved. He seems to have several hats to wear (including running KidsFirst Classes, although “KidsFirst” on PA Secretary of state looks like just a fictitous name of Chet Muklewicz. AS I recall). And I’ve seen (in the past) a contract for some of Libassi services. See firm website and prominent KidsFirst link on it. It appears to be running in about 5 counties (two listed on the mediation site, and if you click on “Classes” and then the blue tab on top of the list of (AFCC books, many from California, as I’ve said before) it shows 3 more counties. The address of Libassi Mediation Services IS the courthouse, so let’s see his lease, too!

”

Anthony J. Libassi M.S., C.R.C., is a trained mediator specializing in Divorce and Custody matters with over 13 years experience. Mr. Libassi serves as a mediator for Lackawanna County Family Court and has been instrumental in developing mediation programs from several phases of Family Court.

Mr. Libassi, as an adjunct faculty member at Pennsylvania State University, has taught courses in Human Development and Family Studies. Mr. Libassi presents the Kids First Program, a four hour parent education class, in several counties in Pennsylvania. He brings over twenty five years of experience of working with families to his mediation practice.

Doesn’t even bother to say where the degree is from (Penn State, of recent fame in nationwide news?) What is a “C.R.C.”?

More Miscellaneous possibly re: Libassi et al. I notice that Lackawanna County Commissioners were last April 1, 2011 (no kidding) soliciting for more Divorce & Family Educators Providers. Will these be independent contractors?

RFQ Divorce and Family Education Providers
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to a fair and open process, sealed submissions will be received and reviewed by the County of Lackawanna (the “County”) Board of Commissioners (“Board of Commissioners”) for Divorce and Family Education Curriculum Providers(Provider).Date Posted: 3/31/2011

Ross is now directing custody evaluation traffic to a man named Arnold Sheinvold. She had been recommending Dr. Ron Refice from Harrisburg. Sheinvold is also from Harrisburg and he’s very, every expensive.

Who makes the decision that there should be custody evaluation? Ross.

iT’S Pay to play all day long at Lackawanna County Family Court. Step right up, bend over, spread your legs, open your wallet and kiss your cash goodbye. KISS YOUR KID’S MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STABILITY GOODBYE, TOO.

It’s Kids for Kash Lackawanna County style while President Judge Tommy Munley spends half his day texting wifey, Jodean, [Ohh, Baby, I love you sooooo much] and the other half trying to get the black robe on straight. Nice job, Tom. Maybe another suicide or two will

OPEN YOUR FVCKING EYES.

And Tom, can you explain why Sue McIlwee is sucking up supervision and inspection jobs right from her position as Danielle Ross’ secretary? She’s a county employee doing Ross’ work and grabbing this work she is unqualified to do, or is she? Either way, it’s not appropriate that Sue snags this work. Ever hear of a thing called

ETHICS?

“Sheinvold” (Shienvold) is AFCC, in fact President of it or soon to be. His firm also contracts directly through State of California as an expert witness.

He sees how the job referrals go, obviously.

Somebody should do the RTK on McIlwee pretty soon.

Ronald J. Refice, Ph.D. shows a degree from Kansas, but looks like he incorporated in PA — and Lackawanna — in September 2008. Did ALL of these people start it up around 2008?

Business Name History

Name

Name Type

RONALD J. REFICE PH.D & ASSOCIATES LTD.

Current Name

Business Corporation – Domestic – Information

Entity Number:

3834647

Status:

Active

Entity Creation Date:

9/11/2008

State of Business.:

PA

Registered Office Address:

823 Carmalt St
Dickson City PA 18519
Lackawanna

Mailing Address:

No Address

Officers

Name:

RONALD REFICE

Title:

President

Address:

823 CARMALT ST
DICKSON CITY PA 18519-35

That summary of how it works was, as I think this shows, in the ballpark, but does not make it to first pace factually. The other team probably stole a few bases in the process. I think the post was in part the need to assert an understanding without actually demonstrating one, or showing others how to get to that knowledge of “how things work,” i.e., retain dependent followers.

(looking up this address — it shows a “Marriage Resource Center” and a few professionals – -not him — including a Jill Ballman. Her bio blurb indicates a Florida Marriage and Family Research Institute. I’ve done some (on-line) time looking up Florida groups, so went there, and found the HHS involvement pretty strong. As we know, “Institute’ often means something at a University — which means, someone funded it, a corp. or HHS, etc. or more. (Except for cases like “Cooperative Parenting Institute” which — so far as I can currently tell — means nothing except an attempt to sound officialy by two women from GA &, now, PA, respectively!)

MFRI:

“Facilitating the development of research and clinical initiatives to better support couples, marriages, and families

The University of Central Florida Marriage and Family Research Institute was created in 2003 to facilitate the development of research and clinical initiatives to better support couples, marriages, and families. The Institute conducts original research and facilitates and supports scholarly activity of faculty and graduate students interested in marriage, family, and child issues. Additionally, the Institute can provide outcome and process evaluation services for other research projects part of and independent of the Institute.

LOOKING AT THIS I see right away at least 4 HHS project set-ups, they just happen to be at the UCF for implementation. Universities are part of the overall scheme.

Funded through the Florida Department of Children and Families, the Stronger Marriages and Stronger Families Program was a three year grant (2003-2006) that supported initiatives established by the United States Department of Health and Human Services and Administration for Children and Families.

{{I”m remembering –this coincides, yes?, with the reign of Jerry Regier — from Oklahoma Marriage Initiative — and the scandal of grants-steering during his leadership of the Florida DCF that, as I recall, led to his resignation. This particular program talks about “faith-based” also, and here’s a nice brochure soliciting people to enroll in couples’ counseling, with a specific curriculum I probably blogged (PREPARE/ENRICH)}}

The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Legislation was created to develop, expand, and operate community-based family services and programs to promote the development and maintenance of safe and stable families in the United States and Tribal entities. The goals of this program were:

(1) To prevent child maltreatment among families at-risk through the provision of supportive family services;

(2) To ensure children’s safety within the home and preserve intact families in which children have been maltreated, when the family’s problems can be addressed effectively;

(3) To address the problems of families where children have been placed in foster care so that reunification may occur in a safe and stable manner in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997; and

(4) To support adoptive families by providing support services as necessary so that they can make a lifetime commitment to their children.

The Stronger Marriages and Stronger Families Program was developed with this legislation in mind.

THREE — is PAIRS, and I’ve plenty about it on this blog, so moving on to

TWO — MDRC-SHM Implementation Plan:

(MDRC is a major federal contractor, a for-profit group that gets 80%? of its business from the US Gov’t. See my blog. I have pie charts and everything — earlier posts).

. . . . [92% of Floridians believe that happy marriages are reelly, reelly important] And yet, programs to support marriage are not a standard service available to married or soon-to-be married couples.

What if a program existed to support married couples? Do you know if it would help them achieve the long, strong marriage and raise happy, healthy children for which they wish, hope and dream? Neither do we.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and MDRC, a research and evaluation organization in New York, has given the Marriage and Family Research Institute in the College of Education at the University of Central Florida the exciting opportunity to study the effects of marriage education and support mechanisms on low to moderate income married couples with children – through the Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM) Together Project.

{{TRANSLATION: they have an agenda, and access to $$. UCF gets the $$, supplies the young energetic, or (at least enrolled in their institute) people, and hopefully everyone is happy and no one will say that Marriage Education for Everyone is not a fantastic idea….}}

As part of a national demonstration and evaluation program, the SHM Together Project and seven other sites in New York, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington (two sites) will each recruit and interview 800 couples. Randomly, 400 couples will be assigned to the control group that receives no SHM-related services, and 400 couples will be assigned to the program group that will receive 12 months of SHM-related services including 30-hours of marriage education, continuous family support and extended marriage and family-related activities. At the end of the year, MDRC will test the difference between the two groups and ultimately answer the question, “Do marriage education and supports help low to moderate income married couples with children have longer, stronger marriages and raise happy, healthier children?”

{{With true scientific objectivity it is assumed that — basically — ALL couples & people are basically the same, so if one group spread between 7 sites in 5 states + DC (400/7= 57 couples per site, and for five states, that’s 57 couples per STATE) seem better after a year of this –and 57 or so couples didn’t — we’re going to say it was a thumbs-up and should be expanded…. I notice it says “moderate-income” so apparently TANF wasn’t funding this one?…}}

This being a university, I find it a little deceptive to use acronyms: SHM, SMSF…

ONE — OFA Project:

This is really a PAIRS project, but as PAIRS is listed separately, this makes it look like more things are on the burner, and more grants may, indeed, be involved….

OFA Together Project

In October 2006, The Office of Financial Assistance of the U.S. Department of Healthy and Human Services has awarded the Institute a five-year grant to design and implement the Together Project. The Together Project aims to bring marriage education services to low-income married couples with children in the Central Florida region and to collect data comparing couples who participate in marriage education with those in a control condition. Over the life of the project, the goal is to serve 200 couples and to collect data on 200 control couples. Control couples will be placed on a waiting list for services and will be eligible for marriage counseling services at the UCF Community Counseling Clinic after completing one-year follow-up data.

{{LOW_income couples only got a 200-couple sample. Moderate-income couples get an 400 couple (+ 400 controls) sample, although more spread out. HIGH-income couples will pay their dues in divorce court anyhow, and/or contribute to some of these nonprofit front groups, so let’s not mess with them…}}

The marriage education treatment for the Together Project is the PAIRS curriculum (Gordon & Frandsen, 1993). There is some empirical support for the PAIRS approach (c.f. Durana, 1998; Goss, 1995). The curriculum was selected because it has this research support and because it focuses on emotional intimacy and bonding rather than a purely behavioral skills approach.

Of the INSTITUTE– the website has a “Resources” link. The first FIVE resources are government supported! With the exception of “SmartMarriages” which is a trademark from Dianne Sollee, who must be making a bundle from all this: she runs conferences where various curriculum providers can get their strategies together, buy into a franchise possibly, and even (if they’ve been smart enough to form a nonprofit association before coming to the conference) get the expenses written off. BASICALLY — the individuals pushing healthy marriage (See GWBush the younger and friends) are simply using a public university to push franchising of their favorite ideas about society. They call the tune.

The following are some informative links related to marriage and family research:

WTF does this have to do with Lackawanna county and an off-hand remark about Ronald Refice as a custody evaluator? well, his corporation shares office address with this woman whose experience says it includes this FLorida group — and that group’s site indicates a Pennsylvania test site, so who knows? Perhaps there’s a connection there. I just googled the street address, found this, backed up to the hyperlink (Marriage Resource Center) she was under — looked for Refice (who doesn’t show up there) and took it from there. One of the therapists (not this one) had the florida connection.

Tolerico, Catherine ACSW

823 Carmalt Street, Dickson City, PA 18519

That’s the same street address as Refice is under. It’s a home — maybe they are partners or married. Therapy building is:

Their Board of Directors are from all over the country, and it appears to have begun its conferences (at least uploading them to the site) in 2006. Every time you go from one section to another of the site, it attempts to sign you up for newsletters, which is annoying …

A long list of bios includes one for renowned Fathers’ Rights lawyer Jeffrey Leving (out of Chicago, whose firm is a sponsor? of Fathers and Families Coalition, a large group with close HHS ties, or at least a VERY friendly relationship with whoever’s heading it up each year — David Hansell, you name it).

Danielle’s is on there — so depending on how the FBI results turn out, probably some of the colleagues will still welcome her with open arms in some other state. Unless she is disbarred or gets a temporary wrist-slap for financial fraud….

It reads:

I am an attorney in Scranton, PA. My full time position involves being appointed as a Guardian ad Litem for children involved in custody proceedings.

Hmm. That’s interesting — who’s her employer? Or does she work FT somewhere else and part of this “involves being appointed” – is she doing something for the judge that appoints her? Or is this simply just dishonest (or not a current listing….). Hmm, hmm, hmmm. (see Pilchesky v. Ross et al.). this is probably why court professionals have to join so many out-of-state organizations; so people don’t catch on to the truths of the matter…. I did find an EIN for Council on Contemporary Families (522070511) and a State (Illinois) See below:

My undergraduate degree is a B.A. is Psychology from the Pennsylvania State University. My juris doctorate was acquired from Widener University School of Law. I am currently pursuing a M.A. in Forensic Psychology.

My area of interest is family law and educating the judiciary to incorporate clinical assessments, impressions and research, when making decisions for families involved in the judicial system. I am interested in insuring a collaborative approach** is applied when dealing with these families in our system.

CONTACT: (etc.)

*(**meaning, we get to have our day in the sun, after all, doesn’t a B.A in Psychology + a J.D. = an expert in family life?)

15 – Organization with a substantial portion of support from a governmental unit or the general public

NTEE:

A99 – Arts, Culture & Humanities N.E.C.

Most recently completed fiscal year (TAXPER)

12/2008

Total Revenue

$33,598

Total Assets:

$86,232

Organization Mission Statement and Purpose

The Council on Contemporary Families is an association of experts on the family from fields of sociology, psychology, anthropology, history, the law, and family therapists. it is an organization devoted to education of the public through bringing to public attention the best research available on the american family in all of its diversity. it is devoted to promoting informed and constructive public discussion of Contemporary Families’ needs and how those needs might best be met.

With all those members, and being around for now 10 years, they finally coughed up a tax return?

This sounds very well-educated, well-recognized, if not exactly gender-neutral:

Waldo E. Johnson Jr., Ph.D., is associate professor at the School of Social Service Administration and faculty affiliate and immediate past director at the Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture at the University of Chicago. He is also a research associate for the Program for Research on Black Americans at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. He teaches social welfare policy, human behavior in the social environment, and research methods in the M.A. and Ph.D. programs. A family scholar, his research focuses on father involvement among low-income, unwed African-American fathers and the relationship between African-American males’ physical and mental health statuses on their family and societal role assumptions and performance across the life course. Most recently, he has been a consultant to the Chicago Community Trust as well as the United Way of Metropolitan Chicago in the development of their respective African American Male Initiatives.

His book, Social Work with African American Males: Health, Mental Health and Social Policy (Oxford Press, 2010), examines the developmental and social challenges and barriers experienced by African-American males across the life course. He is also interested in the use of qualitative research methods {{presumably about AAM MALES}} for guiding social policy. He is a member of the Ford Foundation Scholars Network on Masculinity and the Wellbeing of African American Males; a member of the National Steering Committee and Fatherhood Subcommittee (of what institution or arm of gov’t?) ; chair of the 2025 Campaign for Black Men and Boys; and the inaugural chair of the Commission on Research for the Council on Social Work Education. {{That should take care of it being to female-focused}} During winter 2011, he will be a visiting scholar at Clare Hall, Cambridge University, and the University of Cape Town.

WJohnson holds a Ph.D. in social work from the University of Chicago, an MSW from the University of Michigan, and a B.A. from Mercer University. He was a Ford Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow at the Poverty Research and Training Center and the Program for Research on Black Americans at the University of Michigan

HERE”s the Blurb from the CCF website — which didn’t file tax returns, that we can see, except for the year 2008? I’ll put a ? on that, but generally speaking, I can find tax returns. I found ONE here. The memberhip in 2008 produced fees of about $14K, I’ll go back and see what they are, and do some math…

Waldo E, Johnson, Jr. is associate professor at the School of Social Service Administration faculty has conducted research and published widely on father involvement among unwed, low-income urban fathers; the physical and mental health statuses of African American males and the use of qualitative research methods in guiding social welfare policy. He is a member of the leadership team (chair of the Community Engagement Work Group) for the South Side Health and Vitality Study, a family of interdisciplinary social science, epidemiological and community based studies to be conducted in the 34 community areas (neighborhoods) served by the University of Chicago Medical Center aimed at enhancing the health, wellness and health service delivery of residents.; Building Healthy Communities: A Focus on Young Men and Boys of Color Research Collaborative, initiated by the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity and Justice of the Berkeley Law School of the University of California funded by The California Endowment and the Disenfranchised Men Forum, an initiative sponsored by the New York University’s Metropolitan Center for Urban Education and the Ford Foundation which brings together academic researchers, policy and practice practitioners to address challenges facing disenfranchised males.

Well, at least we know what focus are dealing with here, and he co-chairs the organization, apparently. The Foundation Scholars bio has a photo and further notes some collaboration with the Illinois DCFS. The Illinois – South Side of Chicago & Ford Foundation connections particularly interesting (OBama was here before the White House, we may recall).

Steven Mintz of Columbia (per 2008 tax return) was managing the list-serv. Here’ his bio at that site, HISTORY Department:

Biography
Steven Mintz was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford and John and Rebecca Moores Professor of History and Director of the American Cultures Program at the University of Houston before becoming the director of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Teaching Center. An authority on the history of the family and of children, he is the author and editor of 13 books, including Domestic Revolutions: A Social History of American Family Life, Huck’s Raft: A History of American Childhood, and Moralists & Modernizers: America ’s Pre-Civil War Reformers. He has also published extensively on film history, slavery, abolition, and American reform movements. A pioneer in the application of new technologies to history, he is the creator of the Digital History website (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu) and past president of H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online. He has also served as President of the Society for the History of Children and Youth, and chaired the Council on Contemporary Families, an interdisciplinary organization of scholars and clinicians dedicated to enhancing the national conversation about what contemporary families need and how these needs can best be met. A member of the Society of American Historians, he is a past chair of the Bancroft Prize jury and a member of the advisory board of Film & History, the History Teacher, Slavery & Abolition, and the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.

Stephanie Coontz (also on Board of Directors) has a decorated history, at least she is an author and is quite the presenter. Some of the places she presents seem very conservative (National Council on Family Relations, etc.) she has a book on the history of marriage.

Welcome to Stephanie Coontz’s official website!

Stephanie Coontz teaches history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA. She also serves as Co-Chair and Director of Public Education at the Council on Contemporary Families, a non-profit, nonpartisan association of family researchers and practitioners based at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Her work has been featured in many newspapers such as The New York Times, as well as scholarly journals such as Journal of Marriage and Family, and she is frequently interviewed on national television and radio.

…Coontz has testified about her research before the House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families in Washington, DC . . . In 2004, she received the Council on Contemporary Families first-ever “Visionary Leadership” Award (being on its board of directors……). (from a group that doesn’t file its taxes and exists through membership fees, with hopes to compile a book they’ll sell, no doubt). and ….She also received the 2001-02 “Friend of the Family” award from the Illinois Council on Family Relations. She served as a marriage consultant to The Ladies Home Journal from 2006-2009.

And a lowly GAL from Lackawanna shares professional membership with this level of professional exposure and Ph.D. accomplishments. That should help her out after the FBI returns its reports, assuming it does anything….

(also – is that street address strange enough yet?)

WELL, I could do this all night, despite what week of the year it is (like a few days before Christmas, much?)

This post needs to be split in two, but I’m glad it finally got published!

Back to Ms. Ross’s bio on this illustrious organization, with its illustrious membership (too busy to finish tax returns, I guess, but ready to change the world through influencing policy with their research, etc. )

My area of interest is family law and educating the judiciary to incorporate clinical assessments, impressions and research, when making decisions for families involved in the judicial system. I am interested in insuring a collaborative approach** is applied when dealing with these families in our system.

Ms. Ross – these families? it’s their system — they pay for it. Probably more of them work an honest job than you, at least til you get involved and strip them of their resources! You are in the public servant role within this system. We intend that you and colleagues begin to understand WHOSE system it is, and adjust accordingly.

INTRO:

Overall, I seriously doubt that it’s possible to clean up or straighten up the family law system — at all, and I am utterly serious in saying this. There is too much incentive for fraud, and too much need to “pay the mortgages” in the courthouses by ordering more services, and too little oversight and tracking of the funding. There are too many public employees forming nonprofit corporations to franchise for-profit curricula (marriage, parent education, etc.) — in the old NonProfit/ForProfit combo.

There are too few tools in many states to track WHO is repeatedly forming corporations that go belly-up, only to have a partner or other person formerly on one board just go forth and from another one — in another state. Many of these groups, as my last post showed, are membership organizations — membership is charged, conferences run, and we have some evidence from county payrolls or vouchers from court-connected professionals, that the public is billed to fund attendance at nonprofits whose ONE purpose is to expand their services. Child support is one of the worst of these, but they come in all flavors.

Despite the bleak outlook — I still report and I am going to finish reporting on this field of Parent Coordination until it is CLEAR what the AFCC professionals’ intent is in establishing this field and, if possible, having it legitimized at the state level by establishing standards, or by mandate.

The Association for Family and Conciliation Courts runs many task forces at a time, as part of its strategic plan to expand (itself) and transform the “old” language of criminal law into more friendly-to-its-practitioners concepts. One of them which they are taking VERY seriously in promoting — and I take VERY seriously in protesting — is Parenting Coordination.

Parents didn’t ask for this — it’s no grassroots movement, and from what I can tell how it’s been (1) advertised (2) pushed and (3) practiced — there’s no genuine NEED for it either. For that matter, I see no historical record that parents as a sector (both male and female) asked for the family law system, either.

Why I’m addressing it — again:

(1)

AFCC PROMOTED IT – NOT PARENTS. NO REAL NEED EXISTED, and SERIOUS ISSUES & OBJECTIONS DID. The LizLibrary lists a page of them, and towards the bottom, some legal opinions, too:

Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other

Parenting coordination can never be “voluntary” because it implements unwanted court orders

Parenting coordinators demand that the parties sign “consents” that give up constitutional rights

Some have demanded that parties give up the right to go to court, contact police, or involve their lawyers

They are hired or appointed under shadow of the threat of court sanctions or loss of custody

They are agreed to by parties ignorant of the repercussions, in fear, out of funds, or overwhelmed

Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being

Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, or better adjusted

Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed by the state’s police power

Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships

They align with GALs and other court appointees in a pretext of “focus on the children”

They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making

They undermine the parental authority children require for a sense of security and well-being

Instead of at least one authoritative parent, children have no authoritative parent

Petty tyrants place a premium on the perception of who is cooperating with them

Cooperation with the parenting coordinator is court-ordered and

They alone decide if a parent is “cooperating” with them

From the same page, a case “Parenting Coordinator Out of Control” — and I have to note that it’s an appeal from an order at the FL (presumably 20th) Circuit Court Level bearing Judge Hugh Starnes‘ name!

The Hon. Hugh Starnes showed up in yesterday’s post, where I was simply blogging an AFCC judge, and also his nonprofit in FL with the initials AFLP (logo on the post). I also happen to know he was quite active in FL-AFCC Chapter establishment, which seemed to have the primary agenda of getting parenting coordination passed in Florida. They have since succeeded, I believe, too.

Like I keep saying — sometime others will acknowledge — parenting coordinators are themselves pushy, and AFCC pushed Parenting Coordination, in fact they are one set of bullies when it comes to getting THEIR priorities into practice, then law – citing it’s already in practice anyhow. This is primarily what AFCC does. From the organization’s point of view, this is phrased as “innovative” and “helping” and “problem-solving.” The problem is always the recalcitrant parents, and the UNFORTUNATE vestiges of separation of powers (legal/judicial/executive branch) and little details like confidentiality in a lawsuit, and legal restraints. Here’s a link to Parentcoordination.com’s complaint about the legal limits part – and their plan of PC as an end-run around those limits!

“The Court’s parenting coordinator orders unconsitutionally delegate judicial power and violate due process… The Special Master Order’s requirement that Appellant pay for the parenting coordinators to whom she objects violates law and public policy… The Special Master Order requiring Appellant to waive her medical privilege violates her statutory and constitutional rights to privacy…”

AFCC could care less. They DEMANDED it and are still finishing up trying to get this mandated in every single United State.

Even the brother of the Marriage Promotion President, the “Family” family, George Bush — as Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, FL (2004) had the sense to object based on sound principles. A newly formed (probably for this purpose) chapter of AFCC strategized, lobbied, publicized, practiced, and finally managed to ram it through, over his veto. It only slowed them down slightly.

June 18, 2004

Ms. Glenda E. Hood Secretary of State Florida Department of State

By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, I do hereby withhold my approval of and transmit to you with my objections, Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640, enacted during the 36th session of the Legislature, convened under the Constitution of 1968, during the Regular Session of 2004, and entitled:

An act relating to Parenting Coordination. . .

Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640 authorizes courts to appoint a parenting coordinator when the court finds the parties have not implemented the court-ordered parenting plan, mediation has not been successful, and the court finds the appointment is in the best interest of the children involved.

He lists 5 objections, two of which clearly recognize that it in effect allows a parent coordinator to function as both judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights, and one of which is that it fails to protect victims of domestic violence. I also note from the language that it looks like a Committee (not the general legislature) attempted to have this substitute for an existing Senate Bill. . . . .

(2)

The “Termini/Boyan Factor” — The People fixed on training parent coordinators have a terrible track record when it comes to staying incorporated(I found another one today — Seminars for Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals, or “SAIF.” Formed in 2006, it’s already behind in its filings, in the state of Indiana. And it appears that, again, a nonprofit/for-profit combo, originating not with litigants, but with the professionals, was set up to give (again) some family law attorneys the right to crow about their own parent coordination training seminars they helped run themselves. By and large, that seems to be the situation in Indiana — which it seems New Hampshire liked a lot, too. Termini/Boyan are Georgia/Pennsylvania — but same general idea.

(3)

The language of “parent coordination” is impoverished and repetitive. Here’s an example, from a family law attorney, a bona-fide certified one (although the nonprofit membership she cites all over is anything but “bona-fide” when it comes to filing charitable returns in the home state!)

it’s even from an Amicus Brief (I THINK it got filed, although this isn’t the stamped version). Actually, this is where the title to my post came from:

In the statute of authorities for this brief, bearing the name “Leslie Ellen Shear” and “Stephen Temko” (although the certificate of interested parties form bears the name Shear, and is dated 1/27/2011), after the legal and rules of court list, comes:

“Treatises, Law Reviews and Other Authorities” – and on reading it, I see it quotes, among others:

The nonprofit ACFLS (which she’s head of Amicus Brief Committee on, or was)

AFCC itself (at least twice)

A host of people, known to be AFCC professionals anyhow, for those who pay attention — such as Ahrons, Coates, Deutch, Greenberg, Kelly, and who knows about some of the others. These quotations include those from the AFCC publication, Family Court Review (joint with “Hofstra Univ. School of Law”) and AFCC newsletters, etc.

Note title — trying to legislate parenting coordination. Another set of professionals tried to write “Kids Turn” into law around 2002, right? (see my “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch post.”) then-Governor Gray Davis (properly!) vetoed even the version of it put out which didn’t overtly say “Kids’ Turn” on its face.

So here’s a sample section of this Amicus:

On page 4, quoting AFCC person Greenberg (whose writing I also ran across) cites who came up with the idea, vaguely characterized as:

In 1994, the concept of parenting coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who realized that some high conflict families remained chronically mired in conflict and required something different. . . For these families, the traditional tried and true approaches to containing familial conflict such as litigation, mediation, forensics, and therapy had not worked. Thus, the concept of parenting coordination was conceived as a different and needed dispute resolution intervention.

(Tried and True? Try Tried and found seriously wanting. Don’t believe me? Look here. I’ve already mentioned the Seal Beach (CA) massacre enough times, so here’s one fresh off the press — like YESTERDAY, in Florida. Actually, it seems there’s an acquiescent mother in this one, even after Dad murdered the son, the surviving children (including one witness to that) miss their Daddy. They shouldn’t be supervised, but be able to go to events like church, sports, etc. Sounds like perhaps this is a stepfather (or second family) situation here, judging by age of the children:

ORLANDO, Fla. — A former Orlando police officeraccused of killing his son was back in court, arguing for custody rights to his other children.

Timothy Davis Sr. won a victory of sorts Tuesday when ajudge granted him the ability to pick up his younger children from school, including his 9-year-old daughter who authorities said witnessed the killing.

The retired police officer is accused of shooting his son, 22-year-old Timothy Davis Jr., to death at their Apopka home in what he said was self-defense after his son attacked him, injuring his knee in October.

Here’s another involving 3 children, and a custody hearing, plus prior assaults on the child and wife. Dad managed to get himself shot (to death) after apparently attacking a state trooper. I do not call this ‘tried and true.” This was an American military, married in Germany, but the divorce action appears to be HERE. He also was Marine Corps. Here’s one from Texas; 40 year old father, who apparently had custody? (or certainly unsupervised visitation), emails nude pictures of his 12 year old daughter. This man was living with his mother who, thankfully, was honest enough to do something about her pervert son, although somehow the courts weren’t alert to this in custody decisions:

by KHOU.com staff

khou.com
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:58 PM

KATY, Texas – A 40-year-old father is facing charges for allegedly distributing nude photos of his 12-year-old daughter online.
According to court documents, the suspect was living with his daughter at his mother’s house in Katy when the offenses occurred.
Investigators said that in August of 2011, the suspect’s mother found emails sent from the suspect’s gmail account that contained nude images of children. Some of those images were of the suspect’s daughter, the grandmother said.

Sorry to bring up this very unpleasant reality-check, but when in Amicus Brief a parent-coordinator pusher talks about previously tried methods that work — the definition of “works” or “tried and true” generally just means “tried, sometimes resulting in death, physical or sexual abuse of minors post-separation, or having minor children showing up in child pornography in father’s possession.” All of these were from December 2011 news articles, only.

Keep these incidents for a point of reference while I quote from p.12, a whole chapter on how parent coordinators have such difficult parents to deal with, poor them:

… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage.** These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.

**Difficult-to manage parents are the bread and butter of the family court. They are the income producers. Assigning them to parent coordination is yet one more source of income for the professionals, taken from either the parents, or (looks like there’s some effort to make even broke parents participate in this too — AFCC-CA has a workshop or presentation, on the 2012 hearing on this).

Perhaps the professionals in question should re-think the business of “managing parents” to start with.

So, the opening quote to this chapter is from two long-time AFCC professionals (Coates/Deutsch) in an AFCC publication?, although it’s only 2004, using an AFCC-originated concept and term, “high-conflict families” (although I hear Bill Eddy now says they are high-conflict individuals — see my post on “yet another AFCC wet dream.” and his High-conflict Institute….)

The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to re- turn to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs,* and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,

* perhaps this speaks to the quality of the co-parenting educational programs, more than the parents.

* or perhaps they are pissed at being forced to take co-parenting classes to start with, not mentioning affected if they also have to pay.

Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents.

A casual dismissal of whether it’s just one — or both — parents here. We KNOW that many of these cases — not just some — are in fact cases involving danger, abuse, and etc. These cases do NOT belong in family court at all — but they are there because of greed of professionals, and because of the fatherhood movement (backlash to feminism) that incentivizes and insists that single motherhood is bad for kids. For that matter, even if Mom remarries happily, it’s still supposedly bad for the world if biological father isn’t in his kids’ life.

In short — Ms. Shear and Mr. Temko (whoever drafted this) — are, with their colleagues — unable to literally distinguish between one parent and another when discussing “parents” in front of others who have some privilege (like a statutory justification) or grant to give them.

BUT — their own handbooks, and some appellate cases already involving parenting coordination, show clearly that they are QUITE able to distinguish one parent from another, and not only do, but literally plan how to, target mothers, specifically, for badmouthing and possible intervention in the form of getting the kids away from her. (I have two links to parent coordination handbooks on this post, you can check them out.).

The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997).

You can’t see it here, but on the pdf it shows: in this quote, we have a triple-layer AFCC site. I believe Johnston is probably Janet Johnston (AFCC Board, or was). Kelly, (below) who’s being quoted in the section, if it’s Joan B. Kelly, has been called the “grande dame” of AFCC and mediation promotion in the family law courts. She runs a Northern California Mediation Center, and obviously publishes too. And Shear is AFCC. So — if so — that represents:

AFCC Shear quotes AFCC Kelly quoting AFCC Johnston, as to parent coordination, which is an AFCC idea. (this is FAR more common than most people — who are less obsessive about looking things up than me — realize. I have labored through some pretty detailed writings (NYState) where when they ran out of ideas, they simply restated them, and I literally read ALL the footnotes too, most of which were “ibid.”

Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.

I don’t know how to state this clearly enough. The difficulty any professional has — who by definition holds an option to quit the profession (which they chose) in dealing with a ‘difficult client” is no comparison with the difficulty of dealing — year after year thanks to policies — with an “ex” who has threatened to kidnap or kill, who has beaten one before, or who may be and/or has molested children, possibly one’s own (dep. on the case) before. Suppose the shoe was on the other foot? Again, if professionals don’t like the difficulty they have an option — find another line of work.

But thanks to their insistence on THIS line of work, i.e., at public AND private expense, and explicit danger to the communities — almost no parent — and I’m going to say mother, specifically– can actually get free from real criminals they’ve had children with, even when he’s already in jail.

I know of one case where the person has already done time in an unbelievably severe situation, and this mother/daughter who already went through hell — is being stalked again. Until she’s safe, I’m not naming names, but once she is/they are, I will – because this case was high-profile and has been in the news.

One point of view is dealing with comfort, and potential burnout, in the performance of one’s duties that have internationally networked, federally-funded, county-judicial-level endorsed, and more — support groups. The other is of staying alive, housed, and after that, functional and employed at all.

If one continues to read the Amicus, it continues to complain and blame. The next quote by Shear is of Shear. Here’s a little further on in the Amicus:

Parenting coordination is a very intrusive model, inserting state authority into the daily family lives of parents and children. With those intrusive powers comes a duty to exercise restraint, discretion and wisdom.

This work often creates the perfect storm. Parenting coordinators struggle to avoid being triangulated into the family’s conflicts.

Well, they triangulated themselves in there to start with, intentionally! Which shows a lack of: “restraint, discretion, and wisdom” per se.

The only thing that is clear about appointment of parenting coordinators in California is that family courts are without jurisdiction to make them without a stipulation. Moreover, no published case has upheld orders resulting from a stipulated appointment of a parenting coordinator.

The quote from Greenberg in this Amicus acknowledges that professionals in California & Colorado (two hotspots of family law leadership; Center for Policy Research/Jessica Pearson et al. are in Denver) “spawned” the concept. Or rather, it “was spawned” — we can’t name an individual father, so perhaps it was a sort of psychological gang-rape that produced the idea (just kidding). Unlike “collaborative law” which actually names a father, “Stu Webb” out of MN. . .. And that this began in the 1990s.

We are now in 2011. Perhaps it’s time to admit that it’s a bad idea to start with; if even in California — where AFCC originated — they can’t get it into law!

The text continues — and understanding that I don’t know the underlying case, have not read the entire brief and am not an attorney, I’m to add a comment to the next section:

Of course, courts have no power to modify statutes. Statutes prescribe and proscribe what courts may do.

Damn right they do! On the other hand, has that really slowed down AFCC initiatives, has it? I think there’s been a track record of resounding success, if getting around constitutional and statutory limits pending changing the statutes to accommodate more income streams to court-connected (or formerly court-connected, like retired judges) professionals… is what’s intended.

The California Constitution (art. VI, § 22) prohibits the delegation of judicial power except for the performance of subordinate judicial duties. A trial court lacks either statutory or inherent power to require the parties to bear the cost of a special master’s services, even where it may have the authority to make the appointment. (People v. Superior Court (Laff) (2001) 25 Cal.4th 703)

The Court of Appeal reversed trial court orders delegating authority over the visitation schedule to a child custody evaluator, requiring one of the parents to participate in psychotherapy and requiring that all future custody mat- ters be heard before the same bench officer in In re Marriage of Matthews (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 811, 816–817 because there was no statutory authority supporting such a delegation.

Just GUESSING here, but perhaps if over a 21-year period (in one state), it’s still being stated that there are Constitutional limits on delegating Judicial power, and three years later the Governor of Florida (Jeb Bush) brings it up in a reason for vetoing a parent coordination stipulation — there just MIGHT be a good reason! Parent Coordination is hardly an Occupy San Francisco (or anywhere else in California) grassroots protest or demand, is it, either?

We’re third generation fatherhood programs out here, we are also probably at least second-generation post-TANF (1996), post fatherhood (i.e., about 15-16 years since they passed), and perhaps– just perhaps — the last thing this state needs is more ideas originating from this nonprofit and all its collaborators in therapeutic jurisprudence great ideas.

Perhaps — just perhaps — it’s a good thing if constitutional and statutory limits on out-sourcing the judicial function mean something around here, for a change! Be content with what you got so far, as authorized by access/visitation (three categories of potential program fraud enabled) and all the marriage promotion money too, plus lots of the nonprofits — like ACFLS — not even bothering to report into the state Registry of Charitable Trusts (OAG) anyhow!

(REASON 4)

(4)

Moreover — like most AFCC promotions — the language promoting parent coordination continues to refuse to think or talk in terms of legal rights to INDIVIDUALS as the Declaration of Independence asserted, which helped kickstart the USA, claims they are. The language of parent coordination is continually pluralized, or group-talk. It does not, really, acknowledge that a person could be a member of a family (like “parent” “father” or “mother”) and yet really have — and deserve — equal standing as an individual in any matter, before the law.

Here’s an example from ParentCoordinationCentral.com (Termini/Boyan site). These are the supposed GOALS OF PARENT COORDINATION:

Educate parents regarding the impact of their behaviors on their child(ren)’s development.

[supports my thesis that AFCC members are often frustrated teachers. They want to teach EVERYONE, and if people don’t agree, they are clever about figuring out ways to force this, and be paid for it, too.]

Decrease inappropriate parental behaviors to reduce stress for the child.

[goes with AFCC goal of switching from a legally defined set of prohibited behaviors to an arbitrary, subjective, and personalized version of what is appropriate or inappropriate parental behavior. Instead, how about just accept the basic definitions in the law, and as to court orders, compliance with them?]

Work with parents in developing a detailed plan for issues such as discipline, decision-making, communication, etc.

[Good Grief! — Go have your own children, and raise them — well. Let’s see what fine examples they are, then parents can judge FREELY whether Mr. , Ms. & Mrs. Parent Coordinators are competent to make these plans. I mean — the concept is ridiculous! What about various cultures and family values, so long as they are not child abuse, domestic violence, or otherwise illegal?] [Even then it probably wouldn’t be a comparable situation, because the psychologists involved with the court, and AFCC professionals can usually drum up plenty of high-paying business, whereas a lot of the parents they are dealing with probably, by the time they are on the scene, absolutely cannot.]

Create a more relaxed home atmosphere allowing the child to adjust more effectively with the new family structure.

[You want to have a more relaxed home atmosphere with children/ Again, go have your own and show it to us. Then we can, awestruck by your competence – – and if we want to — copy it!]

Collaborate with professionals involved with the family in order to offer coordinated service.

[that’s closer to the real reason for it — more business referrals to colleagues]

Monitor parental behaviors to ensure that parents are fulfilling their obligations to their child while complying with the recommendations of the Court.

[Children need due process, and they need an active, and respected Bill of Rights, for when they grow up. One purpose of the Bill of Rights was to keep snoops out of one’s private business, so long as that business didn’t ramble over into the criminal arena. It’s called LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. How can one pursue anything with the thought police on one’s heels?. . . . .

Anyone who’s trying to function as a parent coordinator, and talking about children’s needs constantly (to justify it) apparently doesn’t comprehend what long-term dedication to one’s family AND country entails. It entails respecting its laws. I have before blogged an SF-area parent coordinator and family law attorney, who posted on his own site that the Constitution needs to be scrapped and rewritten, why revere it like Christians revere their Bible (guess he’s not one, and doesn’t understand how few Christians actually practice what’s in their Bible — or Constitution — to start with…)]

Parenting Coordination offers a much better way of resolving parenting plan issues than returning to court. And the resolution comes much faster than waiting for a court date and then the court decision. The Parenting Coordinator educates the parents about the harm to the children of hostility between parents, mediates issues as they arise, and if the parents are unable to resolve minor issues, makes the decision.

As ever, when selling their services, AFCC professionals see themselves as the mature adults on the scene, and the parents as a “plural,” and refuse to assign responsibility where it’s perhaps due. They seem to utterly lack curiosity in fact-finding as to that matter. This is understandable, because they deal in “psychology” more than law– which is the culture of the association. While two individual parents are often involved, in the marketing prose, it’s always “the parents” v. “the helping professionals”

However, once in the door, and in practice — then they are quick to blame ONE parent, often the mother, and recommend severe intervention, often removing of contact with the children to counter supposed “alienation.” In other words, they are hypocrites — professing neutrality and to be helping, but planning in advance (in this case) to do harm to one gender — the female, should she as a parent (mother) counter them.

I blogged this earlier, but again (from the same site) — here is their “sample” report from the handbook:

A handbook for the purpose and practice of parenting coordination prepared by PCANH.

Parts of this were credited (fn1 inside) to “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” in Indiana. This is a nonprofit formed in 2005, EIN# 432074631 with principal listed c/o “Gloria K. Mitchell.”

So of course I looked this person up — she is a Rising Star Super Attorney, member of National Association of Counsel for Children, and works in a four-woman firm. The nonprofit, however, is categorized as “exempt — earning under $25,000). website’s “Divorce and Parenting Research Links” is typical, plus a direct link to the Children’s Rights Council” (hover URL). CRC is pretty big in Indiana… Six years after passing the bar, Ms. Mitchell was on the Executive Committee of Family Law Section of Indiana Bar Assoc., and chaired it in 2005. The articles of incorporation show it’s a 501(c)4 (not “3”) and by address its place of business is another law firm in Noblesville, Indiana: Holt, Fleck & Romini. If the image (showing org.’s purpose) doesn’t show, it’s viewable for free on the site below.

Though only incorporated in winter (February) 2005, by summer (July) 2005, Indiana, “Families Moving Forward”** already had a “Parent Coordination Committee” and presented the following report in this context:

*Note: the Nonprofit to present this was incorporated 2/14/2005, in time for this, 3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute agenda (see link) doesn’t show anything about parent coordination, although certainly it could’ve happened. Law firm page for Ms. Mitchell notes that she was “Executive Committee of the “Family Law Section” 1994-2005 and its chair in 2004-2005. So it would make sense that her nonprofit would have a good shot at presenting at that summer institute.

I note that at Ms. Mitchell’s office, one of her associates began as Parent Coordinator in 2006.

Another very smart attorney with stellar credits is Amy Stewart (valedictorian of her law class) is president of this nonprofit (FMF): notice also collaborative law emphasis, plus an AFCC affiliation. In 1999 she had an article published on “Covenant Marriage: Legislating Family Values” Good summary of the issues of religiosity in marriage by a UK author, here Actually, it’s a good summary and a timely read of marriage/divorce, and role of rising religiosity (UK/America) in the mix.

But it was a search for “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” that brought her name up.

Here’s Ms. Stewart’s bio (notice “Collaborative Law”); she works at Bingham McHale, LLP, a large firm with locations in 3 Indiana counties. She is a partner.

Amy concentrates her practice in matrimonial and family law matters. She was one of the first Indiana attorneys trained in collaborative law, and she has been instrumental in introducing the approach in Indiana. She has practiced collaborative law since 2007, has attended several conferences of the International Association of Collaborative Professionals,* and has been trained by collaborative law founder Stuart Webb. In addition, Amy also practices traditional litigation.

*Readers probably may not remember, so I’ll remind us. the “IACP” is another incarnation, membership association — out of many — formed by AFCC-type professionals, as you can see by the description:

ACP is the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, an international community of legal, mental health and financial professionals working in concert to create client-centered processes for resolving conflict.

I probably blogged it, too. I remember looking up the various websites, corporate registrations, etc. Here’s their About Us/History narrative. I notice a good chunk of it (after inspiration by “Stu Webb” in MN) took form in the Northern California family court association nonprofit factor, aka the SF Bay Area, including Oakland (East Bay) and other well-known cities:

In May of 1999, the first annual AICP [=American Institute of Collaborative Professionals] networking forum was held in Oakland, California. The following year, a meeting was held in Chicago to discuss the state of Collaborative legal practice across the country. The nearly 50 practitioners who attended this meeting agreed that AICP should serve as the umbrella organization for our rapidly-growing movement. At the same time, they recognized that since Collaborative Practice was also developing exponentially across Canada, the organization needed a broader, more inclusive name and mission. Thus the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals was born in late 2000, officially changing its name in 2001.

The Collaborative Review has been published continuously since May, 1999. The work begun by initial editors Jennifer Jackson and Pauline Tesler. . .

Jennifer Jackson (FYI, I’ve never met, spoken to, or dealt with her in court) is kind of branded in my mind as having helped start up Kids’ Turn (SF):

FYI — here is another Super Lawyer, high-profile, longstanding success. Her “about” page lists many accomplishments. Notice which comes first; notice also the variety of terms which are basic to the field: I’ll bold them:

About Jennifer Jackson

Before becoming a family lawyer in 1985, Jennifer Jackson was an illustrator and photographer, raising three children.

A LITTLE LOCAL COMMENTARY relating to this Super-Productive/Super Attorney and her many Nonprofits:

I know artists, including photographers and illustrators. It’s not that easy to make a living at; this speaks of either a good prior divorce settlement, (or not marrying) or some substantial education somewhere along the line, undergrad plus law school. That’s quite a set of accomplishments, but I don’t think represents an indigence. See Resume:

BA with Honors in 1966, became family lawyer (passed bar?)

1985, with Professor’s Assistanceships (in law school) on child-related and mediation topics. Maybe I can assume that almost 20 year gap is called “Mom” and “Wife” time.

In 1987, she helped found Kids’ Turn and was simultaneously involved in PTA Board at “Campolindo High School” where her kids probably attended. Campolindo is — well, its site describes it well:

“Located in the hills east of the University of California, Berkeley, Campolindo serves the professionally-oriented and well-educated suburban communities of Moraga and Lafayette. Students, teachers and parents work together to provide a positive climate for learning where mutual respect, trust and esteem are valued. ” . . .”In statewide API (Academic Performance Index) ratings, for the fifth year in a row, both the Acalanes District and Campolindo are ranked in the very top percentiles of all public high schools in California with an API score of 919. Nationally, Campolindo is recognized regularly in Newsweek magazine as one of the “Best High Schools in America”. The Association of Californa School Administrators honored Campolindo’s Principal, Carol Kitchens, as the Secondary Principal of the Year in 2009

This is my way — as is this demographics piechart** of saying, as fantastic as these achievements are for Ms. Jackson — something had her living (presumably) in Moraga around the time she passed the bar — and that’s a privileged community. A neighboring one, Orinda, shows has a 2009 median household of $156K, and more than half the town earning that much, and the largest sector earning over $200K.

To get a general feel for housing in the area — this is my tactful way of saying that until the 1960s, some of these communities did not allow African-American housing loans, or greatly restricted them — read this thoughtful summary of Berkeley, including a lot on demographics and migration.

Essentially, people that might work as professors, or other high-paying jobs in SF or Berkeley (or even Oakland) would then leave those urban areas and commute straight past (on highways like as not) the dangerous and darker-skinned areas, right on back to the suburbs. Just keep this in mind when someone from this area (however s/he got there) is all excited about helping poor kids, single mother or no single mother. And I don’t know specifically that Jennifer Jackson was; although no mention of a husband is made, or the children’s father.

(**scroll down to see race (total African Americans: 166, Hispanic, invisible — they are living elsewhere and working on the lawns and in the retail & domestic sectors no doubt (wikipedia, though, says 7% in 2010) — how few single parent households, and almost NO violent crime). As of 2010, Moraga had a total population of 16,016 people. As of the 2000 census, Moraga was the 79th wealthiest place in the US with a population above 10,000. The median income for a household in the town is $98,080, and the median income for a family is $116,113. Males have a median income of $92,815 versus $51,296 for females.[almost 2:1!!] )

Blending this background of creativity, caring and flexibility with her legal training enhances her practice of family law and expands the options for her clients.

Jennifer believes that a lawyer must be actively involved in her professional community, and that life is about making a difference. Jennifer is one of the founders of Kids’ Turn, a program for separating families begun in San Francisco which has expanded exponentially in size and in quality of service to children and families.

(If you know my blog, you know EXACTLY why and how Kids’ Turn “expanded exponentially in size” — see family law attorneys, evaluators & judges on the board, see access/visitation funds “facilitating” parent education programs. . . . .As to the quality of service? That’s debatable, but as I haven’t sat through any of the classes — except to note they use the word “parental alienation” a lot in stating benefits, i.e., “reduces parental alienation” type claims. I’ll withhold judgment on this, as should others who haven’t !!)

She is one of the founders of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals and served for eight years as co-editor of its journal, The Collaborative Review. She has had leadership roles in her professional organizations at local, state national and international levels, and is a past president of the Northern California chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Within five years of passing the bar, she is serving as a judge pro tem– how common is that? Or this?

[[This is almost another topic — I’ve footnoted it [VLSP* at bottom of post, a section in itself….]

Expert: Temporary Restraining Order Clinic

Jennifer has been given an “AV” rating by Martindale-Hubbell and has been named one of the top 50 female lawyers (“Super Lawyers”) in Northern California in all areas of practice by Law and Politics Publications for the past five years in a row. Jennifer practices alternative dispute resolution exclusively; she has trained extensively in mediation and collaboration, and is committed to keeping clients out of court and at the negotiating table.

The IACP has created Standards for practitioners, trainers and collaborative practice trainings. It has promulgated Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners, and continues to support excellence in collaborative practice through resources, training curriculum, practice tools, mentoring and a comprehensive website, allowing collaborative practitioners to continue our tradition of sharing and learning from one another.

Where we are going…

Today, the IACP has over 4,000 members from twenty four countries around the world. We are dedicated to educating the public about the Collaborative alternative. We are committed to fostering professional excellence in conflict resolution through Collaborative Practice. We invite you to peruse this site to learn more about IACP, our services and initiatives.

Amy is the past-chair of the Family Law Section of the Indianapolis Bar Association (2003) and is president of Families Moving Forward, Inc., a multi-disciplinary non-profit organization devoted to developing healthy approaches to family transitions.. . .[Law Degree summa cum laude Indiana Univ. School of Law, 1999; admitted to IN bar same year, graduate “with high distinction” in 1986. ]

5 years of work and/or law school, and within 4 more years she’s charing the Family Law Section of Indianapolis (that’s one city, not the whole state’s) Bar Assocation. What a nice nonprofit and what accomplished professionals, and how successful they are. As such, we should believe what they say, especially as the nonprofit “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” is DEVOTED to a HEALTHY APPROACH to “Family transitions.” (typically called divorces or custody matters).

** a name in other states used for purposes such as helping with homelessness, or infants with fetal alcohol syndrome, other issues, here it’s referring to divorce:

FAMILIES MOVING FORWARD, INC., is an interdisciplinary organization of attorneys, mental health providers, accountants, and other professionals committed to improving the process of family transition in Indiana, by reducing conflict and cost, creating healthier outcomes for children, and enhancing the satisfaction of professionals serving families.

(However, notice the articles of incorporation say it’s there to serve the families as well as the professionals serving the families)

This For-Profit group incorporated as below in Indiana, with the address “9000 KEYSTONE CROSSING, STE 600, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 (which is “HuirasLaw,” Wm. E. Huiras, although the Registered Agent is another attorney, Robin Brown Neihaus (LinkedIn)

(the entity filed one report in 2008, file notes, it owes 2010/2011 – perhaps IN is only every 2 years).

Segments from the Indiana 2005 Sample PC report (handbook):

The sample report begins with a situation between father and stepfather which was hostile. Both wanted to coach on Little (10) Joey’s baseball team.

Therapy for both TOGETHER is recommended:

5. Mr. Smith and Mr. Doe should attend counseling sessions together to attempt to resolve their(For example, the mother did not want the father to volunteer on Fridays at school any longer. She maintained that the children were emotional and upset on those mornings and did not want to go to school. The teachers were contacted and reported that the children looked forward to and enjoyed their father’s presence.

AFCC CLAIMS CREDIT FOR HAVING DEVELOPING PARENT COORDINATION:

From their 5-year prospectus:

AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination

In 2003, AFCC President George Czutrin appointed a Task Force to develop Model Standards of Practice for Parenting Coordination, following the first Task Force on Parenting

Coordination that conducted research and published the 2003 Report on Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues. The Task Force determined that the Parenting Coordination process was too new to use the term “Model Standards” and, in May 2005, proposed to the Board of Directors the AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination. The Guidelines passed unanimously and are available on the AFCC Web site at http://www.afccnet.org/resources/standards_practice.asp.

The following new publications have been developed since 2002 while dated products were been eliminated:

• Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues

There are scholarly articles galore about this. One by matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. (and a parent coordinator) uses the phrase repeatedly in the abstract — but to access the article one-time costs $34 and permanently $155. Needless to say, not many people who have parent coordinators in their lives can afford to read up on it….

“In 1994 the concept of parent coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who

WHILE PROMOTION EFFORTS TEND TO PHRASE PARENT COORDINATION PASSIVELY (as if a natural development), IN PRIVATE PUBLICATIONS, IT TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE FIELD:

AFCC STAYS FOCUSED ON IMPLEMENTING AND PROMOTING PARENT COORDINATION:

And I am going to show you what apparent frauds some of the prime “trainers” are in this field too. But first, let’s look at the upcoming 2012 conference called:

This is an upcoming (Feb. 2012) meeting of the California Chapter of the AFCC. An entire day is dedicated to a workshop on Parenting Coordination, and a secondary one talks about how to get it in there — even if parents are indigent.

Here are the presenters’ bios (please scroll through). Some are more than a page, others short. Notice the types of professionals involved (typical), Judges, Attorneys and Psychologists, Mediators, etc. Some have been around forever (Joan B. Kelly, Dianna Gould-Saltzmann) others seem newer:

Abbas Hadjian, Esquire devotes a substantial part of his family law practice to educating the Farsi‐speaking community on the comparisons between the American and Iranian legal system and recently published “Divorce in California,” which is written in Farsi. He is an expert on Iranian culture and laws.

(from his website, partial description of an amazing background):

Mr. Hadjian was born, educated and lived in Iran until 1980. Between 1959 and 1968 Mr. Hadjian was a professional journalist in Iran, with positions including editor, writer, reporter, translator and commentator in major Iranian publications and news agencies. His profession a journalist required and helped Mr. Hadjian’s foundational understanding of the Iranian legal, social, economical and political structure. Between 1962 and 1966, Mr. Hadjian attended the School of Law, Political Science and Economics in Tehran University. Among others, he received courses in Iranian Constitution, Civil, Family and Probate law, furthering his understanding of the legal, social, economic and political infrastructure of his native country.

Upon graduation. Mr. Hadjian became a political appointee in the Office of the Governor General, Iranian Southern Ports and Islands (Persian Gulf), where he acted as a ranking civil officer in the region until 1978, the year of the Iranian Revolution. As deputy to the Governor General in social and economic affairs, Mr. Hadjian relied heavily on his legal studies and implemented them in real life situations. In 1975, Harvard University accepted him to the renowned Edward S. Mason Program for Public Development on full scholarship, acknowledging five years of Mr. Hadjian’s services in developing the Persian Gulf region as one year of post-graduate studies. He was awarded a Masters Degree in Public Administration

A related site from “Culture Counts.net” (site has three diverse professionals) has a page about fatherhood, the new normal, which “surprisingly” reminds readers about:

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Children

Children display increased self-confidence.

Better able to deal with frustration and other feelings.

Higher grade point averages.

More likely to mature into compassionate adults.

Paternal emotional responses to sons were associated with a 50% decrease in sons’ expressions of sadness and anxiety from preschool to early school age

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Men

Helps men reevaluate their priorities and become more caring human beings who are concerned about future generations.

May reduce health-risk behaviors.

Decreases psychological distress as emotional involvement with children acts as a buffer against work-related stress.

Happiness and increased physical activity.

Sense of accomplishment, well-being, and contentment.

Men tend to be more involved with extended family and others in the community.

Over time, fatherhood increases marital stability.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Here is the rather short blurb of a long-time attorney in California, who in this conference is presenting an all-day workshop on Parenting Coordination:

Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS

Ms. Shear is a graduate of UCLA School of Law and admitted to the California Bar in 1976 and maintains her practice in Encino, California. A frequent lecturer in custody matters, she has been involved in a number of high-profile custody cases over the years – most recently, Marriage of LaMusga and Marriage of Seagondollar.

I note she was admitted to the bar fully 20 years before welfare reform and almost as much before VAWA.

These three are going to present on Parenting Coordination — an all-day institute. It must be important:

III. Parenting Coordinators Work With the Most Difficult Family Court Population – Those Most Prone to Assert Grievances and Challenge Decisionmakers

… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage. These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.
Coates, Deutsch et al. (2004) Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Fami- lies 42 Fam. Ct. Rev. 246, 252

The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to return to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs, and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,

Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents. The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997). Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.

+ + + + = = = + + + = = =

[VSLP*]. This footnote comes from a fragment of attorney Jennifer Jackson’s resume, which itself came from a bio of another nonprofit, Families Moving Forward, Inc. in Indiana. I was following up in another nonprofit, “International Association Collaborative Professionals” and I guess you can see about how curious I am about the inter-relationships of various nonprofits.

I looked at the staff. This one caught my attention — because of the specialties, not him personally:

Chris Emley (in 2011, or at least now on the website.)

Chris is a certified family law specialist and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, with 41 years of experience focusing on child custody litigation. He has been included in Best Lawyers in America since 1991. He has helped to govern VLSP since its inception in 1979. He received the State Bar President’s Pro Bono Service Award in 1983, the Legal Assistance Association of California’s Award of Merit in 1989, and two Awards of Merit from The Bar Association of San Francisco (1977 and 2004). He was a BASF board member from 1979 through 1981, and chaired the Lawyer Referral Service Committee. Chris was Vice President of the San Francisco Child Abuse Council, Chairman of the Board of Legal Assistance to the Elderly, and Chairman of the Board of Legal Services for Children, Inc.

There happens to be one pro bono group in the SF Bay area which used to help women leaving violence and eventually in the news (and had I known at the time to check all these 990s, I’d have seen the notation that it specialized in helping NONCustodial, low-income fathers, I’d have realized why this group refused to help so many mothers stuck in the family law system.). The presence of a Certified Family Law Practitioner on the board of VSLP, with his emphasis being on children’s rights, and without question, children in ANY institutional system these days need help and representation, does make me wonder who is helping with women’s rights when it comes to actual mothers who aren’t in jail for killing their batterers (which have some groups advocating) — but actually dealing with the horrors of year after year in a custody battle with a violent or abusive ex, and doing so without even a grasp of how it works, or who pays its bills.

General Comments:

I don’t see anything in VSLP which remotely deals with the situation, and was able to get no actual help (legal representation of any sort, pro bono) in my case either, not past the initial restraining order, and a perfunctory (and NOT in court) attempt to renew it, which I was told would be a non-issue, it’s often granted automatically! No one came to court where I, like many, many other “custodial” mothers after leaving abuse, was blindsided by a prior ex parte movement consolidating renewal with a divorce and custody matter, thus shifting the case into the family law system, where it remained, and where the actual topic of ongoing DV was drowned by the type of talk we see in these realms — psychological states, not literal deeds!

The moral is, every program and every nonprofit has its target clientele. As the target clientele (for keeping in their proper place) in so many federal grants to the states are fathers (when it comes to custody matters), it would make no “sense” for the government to also pay the opposing side, the protective mothers!

[[Interesting program, project of SF Bar: its family law person Chris Emley also on Board of “Legal Services for Children” which (as of 2001) got funding from City & County of SF, SF Dept. of Public Health, and SF Dept. of Children, Youth & Their Families.

Its address seems to be a few doors down from Kids Turn: 1254 Market vs. 1242 Market Street. “Legal Services for Children” (2010) shows no Chris Emley on the Board, but its main purposes are: 1. Guardianship for children wanting it; 2. Helping kids dealing with expulsion and school-related issues; 3. Immigration. . ..It also represents children in foster care and helps support LGBT youth. 200 Volunteer attorneys gave over $1mil worth of their help. The group received over $1 mill. of contrib& grants, and gave $65,000 to a DC nonprofit, National Juvenile Defender Center (EIN# 02060456. On “Foundation Finder” this EIN doesn’t pull up a tax return…..for any year. Nor does a name search! However from NCCSdataweb, I see that it was incorporated in 2002 (legal services for children, in 1975). This “National Juvenile Defender Center” interests me: 2002 income, 0. A 2007 letter from Andrea Weisman, signed DC Dept of Youth Rehab. Services (“DYRS”) (shares address with a Board member of NJDC, Mark Soler, 2002) expresses the serious problems of Youth in Adult Facilities. Weisman and Soler (again, board member of the group which got $65K grant from the West-Coast “Legal Services for Children,” which takes funding from various depts. of SF and its city & county) worked together (1999?) on “No Minor Matter: Children in Maryland’s Jails.” Weisman notes she got a $1.6mil grant from OJJDP. ]]

National Juvenile Defender Center:

2002– income is zero. By 2009 — they are into Technical Training and Assistance. And ExDir. Patricia Puritz as only paid director, gets $134K salary) — and have landed over $5 million of grants, and earning $10K from investment income and have some serious program income in 2010 ($119K= almost (but not quite) enough to pay their own Exec. Director:. Check it out. So why, in the following year (revenues down to $405K — but probably some leftovers, wanna bet?) did a group in SF just grant them $65,000? Or was that a sort of tax equalization between them both. I live in the same state as “Legal Service for Children, Inc.” and we know that our K-12 schools are taking a serious hit? Why should enough money to feed, clothe and house three families in this area for a year, be given to a nonprofit out of DC that just got $5 million the year before?

The National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) was created in 1999 to respond to the critical need to build the capacity of the juvenile defense bar and to improve access to counsel and quality of representation for children in the justice system. In 2005, the National Juvenile Defender Center separated from the American Bar Association to become an independent organization. NJDC gives juvenile defense attorneys a more permanent capacity to address practice issues, improve advocacy skills, build partnerships, exchange information, and participate in the national debate over juvenile crime.

They operate 9 US Regional Centers; the California one is in SF and among its projects is:

The eight-state network is coordinated through the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC), and engages juvenile defenders, policymakers, judges and other key stakeholders in designing strategies to improve juvenile indigent defense policy and practice. California was chosen as a result of its demonstrated ability to achieve measurable reform on juvenile indigent defense issues. California’s JIDAN work will be centered in the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center.

Much of this relates to the “OJJDP” and the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act. This is an entirely different category than “Parenting Coordination” through the family law center; it is dealing with things such as the US being the world largest per-capita jailor, that those in jail are disproprotionately minority, that horrible things are happening to youth while in confinement, etc. By comparison, the “Parent Coordinator” issue seems like kids’ play unless one begins to wonder how many of the youth in detention had parents stuck in the family law system, which definitely cuts down on actual parenting time and focus!

NOPE. It is different. So I hope you will call or tune in next Tuesday at 9pm EST (til further notice):

This week ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED welcomes our newest team member, Athena Phoenix to help us improve the justice system by bringing reformation to the apathetic and corrupt divisions of our state and federal governments.

Dear Abuse,

(From the Show Description, continued):

Have you ever wondered why the justice system and the media ignores some predatory CPS or child support enforcement programs which target and exploit families? Are courts and the Department of Children and Families receiving financial incentives from the Federal government to increase conflict in family court cases by awarding custody to unfit and unwilling parents, and even taking kids out of good homes and into the system?

Abuse Freedom Radio invites you to tune in this Tuesday night at 9:00 EST to welcome Host Athena Phoenix to the AFU family and support our newest program, The 66/34 Effect: Funding in the Family Courtswith host Athena Phoenix. Guests this week will be:

LIZ RICHARDS, Founder of National Alliance for Family Court Justice (www.nafcj.net) For over 20 years, Liz has been a pioneer in the mother’s rights movement a national expert on HHS funding research, fraud, and political reform.

FRED SOTTILE, President of the LA Chapter of Fathers 4 Justice, author, radio host, and a prominent TANF Title IV-D abolition activist.

JACK KELLY, Democratic party political activist, Boston based blogger and columnist who wrote about the Penn State scandal.

Find out from special guest Fred Sottile why father’s rights groups are joining the fight to cut $5 billion in wasteful spending on IV-D TANF programs, including fatherhood programs funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]. Also learn about Fred’s work on judicial reform and transparency with activists like Richard Fine, Full Disclosure Networks, and Judicial Watch.

Liz Richards will educate listeners on the politics of HHS Fatherhood and Healthy Families program funding, and how these funds are used to effect the outcome of court cases. Are grant programs administered through child support enforcement agencies, such as Responsible Fatherhood programs and Access and Visitation programs meeting their funding and accountability requirements? Is there a connection to the Penn State scandal and Occupy Wall Street?

Please join us, and feel free to call in and join the discussion as we find ways to improve the system.

Sincerely,

Jane Boyer & Josie Perez

Abuse Freedom United

IF HHS PROGRAMS ARE FAILING FAMILIES, WHY DO WE KEEP FUNDING THEM? What can we do to reform them?

Why is child support enforcement creating TANF programs which waive due process, collecting billions in child support, then fail to disburse it to the children it is intended to benefit? How much does your judge know about HHS funding and family services? How much of your tax dollars is being used to support programs like CPS, foster care, The Second Mile nonprofit, and Penn State who failed to protect the children raped by Coach Sandusky? Tune in and find out.

I believe this 11/15/2011 show is now available to hear, and it will be weekly (though with which guests, I don’t know). However, the “64/34 Effect” — which has nothing to do with what most “expose the impact of domestic violence” or Train The Judges to recognize it — movements talk about. That 64/34 effect, however, has had greater influence in preventing families from getting out of it.

You’ll also note that there are both men and women on the show, and (for the record) that’s not men and women who are all pro-feminist, or pro-father. Rather, at least some people have started figuring out it’s time to stop playing the Good Cop Bad Cop (Men v. Women) themes that have been fed us by media campaigns — and instead look at some of what I have begun to (for some years now) report on this blog. I report on organizations, nonprofits, foundations, and funding behind the policies that messed with my family (yes, even my ex, who was also a batterer) and compromised our futures –badly.

(I hope the show is helpful//for the record, I’m not a regular listener and don’t know about previous episodes), or the hosts Boyer & Perez)

NOW –

ABOUT ME (& the Let’s Get Honest BLOG)

I am What I am, which is changing with time. . .. (so is the blog, only it’s an it).

I don’t tag consistently, so if you’re hunting for something, use the search field.

I don’t proofread, copyedit, and once the thing is off my chest and published, usually that’s it’s format (love it or leave it).

I know — and deduce, from who’s watching it — that this blog has information on it you will NOT typically find elsewhere. I know that, because I’m a diligent person and voracious reader, and I explored the usual alternatives –consistently and hard — during a seven-year period (and thereafter) between filing a domestic violence restraining order with kickout, and watching my children have a custody-switch overnight (not getting to say goodbye to them, or vice versa) after which they basically disappeared out of my life. This was a planned event, and an enabled event — and in this blog, I am going to talk about the CONTEXT in which planned and enabled events of this sort take place.

I quit dealing with nonprofits, or asking them for help, after I realized who they are actually answerable to — and that’s their funders, NOT their clients, who represent warm bodies that come and go through their doors, justifying the funding. This includes all kinds of nonprofits.

The most important things needed for a mother (specifically, but it can also help nonabusive fathers) to know in the court system — to possibly stop getting screwed with (pardon the French) will NOT be found on domestic violence prevention sides, family court self-help sites (naturally), or even protective mothers sites.

I can document a family law case (Sacks v. Sacks) that had all of the above type groups backing it from Florida to the Supreme Court of the USA (where it was declined for a hearing) and back, which chose to ignore what I blog, and think that the case was “about” their individual judges, custody evaluators, attorneys, or situation. It’s not. Get over it. Deal with it. Grow up. What happens in the courtroom — in the bottom line — is NOT about you, and in many cases, the outcome is often settled before you get there (if you have the privilege, which some don’t).

We thank you Linda Marie for your courage, faith, and strength to speak for those who have been silenced by their abusers and the courts.

CASE UPDATE: JUNE 27, 2011 CASE

US SUPREME COURT: “WE DONT DO FAMILY LAW”

THE US SUPREME COURT DENIED LINDA MARIE SACKS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN SACKS V SACKS. WE ARE DISSAPOINTED BUT NOT SHOCKED AT THE US SUPREME COURTS COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. DESHANEY V WINNEBEGO, CASTLE ROCK V GONZALES, TITELMAN V TITELMAN ARE PRIME EXAMPLES OF OUR NATIONS HIGHEST COURT IGNORING THE PLEAS OF PARENTS TRYING TO FIND JUSTICE FOR THEIR CHILDREN WHO ARE SEVERELY ABUSED OR MURDERED. OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE STATE SUPREME COURTS AND THE US SUPREME COURT REFUSE TO PROTECT VICTIMS AND POLICE THEIR OWN. WHY HAVE SUPREME COURTS THAT ARE DEAF TO THOSE MATTERS THAT REALLY COUNT. IS BURNING OUR FLAG, STRIP SEARCHING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN, SCHOOL PRAYER, AND THE LIKE-MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RIGHT OF PARENTS TO PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN FROM ABUSE AND MURDER?

This Petition for Writ of Certiori, i.e., to be heard by the US Supreme Court under “Other Authorities” cites Dr. Phil and the O (Oprah’s) magazine, a SF online weekly, a radio interview of Linda Sacks, and basically a laundry list of the nonprofits and individuals that did NOT inform this parent about what just happened to her. Or why a Supervised Visitation Center — or having a person on her case (Dr. Deborah O. Day) who just happened to be a founding board member of the Florida AFCC, and a Certified Family Mediator and is big on Munchhausen’s by Proxy — might relate to the problems she, like others, has been having. Instead, she focused on being “squeaky clean” and how unfair the system was to her — rather than studying the system. The groups cited (see the writ) don’t talk about AFCC, either, nor does a recent tome called Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody (see the groups listed).

Meanwhile — in Lancaster, Pennsylvania very recently– a forum exists “Expose Corruption” exists, which reports on its local courts and potential corruption, and the moderator (I think it’s the moderator) simply sent off a “Right to Know” information request on one of the court personnel, and got payment vouchers,* (*it doesn’t look like Ms. Sacks ever did this) discovered no contract exists for the person in question, found out what a nice living she is making at public expense, as either Guardian Ad Litem or Parenting Coordinator. She sued him for inadvertently posting SS#s that the responding officials “forgot” to redact on the vouchers, and the game’s on. But it began with someone noticing that judges were steering cases to certain profiteers, and inquiring about the profit.

FBI searches court administrator’s office

BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK (STAFF WRITER)

Published: November 15, 2011

FBI agents executed a search warrant on Lackawanna County Court Administrator Ron Mackay’s office Monday afternoon as part of an investigation into a program that provides lawyers for children in family court cases.

Mr. Mackay declined to answer questions about the visit and answered “no” when asked if he would provide The Times-Tribune a copy of the search warrant.

The visit lasted less than an hour. For a while, as agents worked in his office, Mr. Mackay was required to stand in a waiting room outside the suite that houses his office. An FBI agent stood near Mr. Mackay guarding the entrance to the suite. Eventually, four men dressed in plain clothes, only one of whom acknowledged being an FBI agent, walked out, with one carrying a box with white papers sticking out of the top.

. . .The FBI has been investigating the county’s guardian ad litem system, which is in the hands of one lawyer, attorney Danielle Ross. The county court sometimes appoints a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of children in family court disputes between parents, often in cases of divorce or when custody is at stake.

Late last month, agents served subpoenas at the county courthouse and administration building as part of their investigation. In September, a federal grand jury subpoena ordered County Controller Ken McDowell to produce all bills, invoices, receipts and statements for every case assigned to Ms. Ross.

(etc.)(who you know I’ve been looking at too — as I can’t see where Termini & Boyan are currently incorporated — and I don’t think they are. Termini’s making a good living in Lancaster County at the courthouse, since (it seems) about 2008. Coincidentally? The “National Association for Parent Coordination” in Georgia got dissolved in about 2008 (same dynamic duo in charge). now they run advanced parent coordination training (for a stiff price) and well they should — because in Lancaster at least, it seems to net $60/hour, plenty of referrals (and without a contract even??). . . We, too, can do “right to know” or “FOIA” inquiries, and should do more.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

On the other hand, knowledge — and knowledge you can act on locally — is empowering, even if the scenario is daunting. I have learned so much by having all systems fail in the family law, family, (religious institutions), criminal justice system (i.e., law enforcement), and a few more along the way. I know I am a better woman for it, though sorry it took so many years (i.e., I got older in the meantime) Forgot to add

I’m longwinded. The posting has really gotten out of hand, and while it may be a warm blanket to me, I’m getting ready to let go of it and go Facebook, Twitter, or something else. I don’t seriously believe anyone reads the entire posts. It’s where I keep (SOME, FYI, not all), of my research, for the record. The research has borne out, and there IS a clearer picture (in my understanding) of what to ignore and what to pay attention to in these systems. And of the country I live in (shudder!) as a woman, particularly a woman beyond kicking out some more babies, or with an appetite for raising someone else’s. That frees up a lot of thought time .. … ….

Oh yes — there are about 9 different pages on here. But only the main page, generally, is added to. It’s structured like this. I write until I’m done (and only a small portion of the screen is visible at a time; no hardcopy printouts or second drafts). When I’m done –or sometimes several paragraphs beyond that, then I stop, and usually hit “Publish.”

Whatever I am saying, visits are steadily coming from state & county & city governments, various court systems, law firms, the California Judicial Council,

(I’m not going to keep posting visitors here, but the posts they chose to look at are an indicator of possibly something YOU might want to look at. Also, I believe we should keep certain public entities on their toes (if possible), particularly ones that have been on our HEELS, dogging us, driving us — and for what? For profit? For someone’s career track? To bring world peace or solve world poverty?

(besides which it was seriously difficult to get those stats into the WordPress margins… ) IN THE BOTTOM LINE, THE QUESTION BECOMES — WHOSE LIFE IS MINE? WHOSE MONEY IS THE MONEY I EARN? WHAT ABOUT CHILDREN? IF A MOTHER AND FATHER HAVE CHILDREN AND A CUSTODY DISPUTE, WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY? By law, the ANSWER is here, and the answer is NOT his or hers….The UCCJEA talks about which STATE has jurisdiction, when it’s a multi-state custody matter. But what about within a single state?JURISDICTION:

So what is jurisdiction? It is the right, the power, and the control that the court will have over a certain legal issue or subject. Thus there is geographical jurisdiction (where can the case be heard?), subject matter jurisdiction (which court has authority to hear and decide this particular legal issue?), personal jurisdiction (does the court have the power to make a person obey its orders?) and there are other jurisdictional questions.

What we normally call FAMILY COURTS ( as I am understanding this) are actually by statue “CONCILIATION COURTS….Now the type of people going to the family law system are not typically the happily married couples, but couples with often “irreconcilable differences” this may come of a bit of a shock — while you are figuring out how to separate, the court is actually (by legal purpose) trying to get you back together, apparently (I’ll use that word a lot so no one thinks about accusing me of practicing law ….).

No, seriously …..

WHAT IS A “CONCILIATION COURT” (ever heard the term?)

Conciliation Courts

California was one of the first states to establish conciliation courts. The purpose of a conciliation court is to encourage families to attempt reconciliation and reduce litigation in family law cases. In California counties with conciliation courts, parties may petition the court for help in resolving disputed family law matters prior to, or even after, filing an action for dissolution. While the matter is under advisement by the conciliation court, neither party may file an action for dissolution without permission of the court.

How many mothers or fathers are even aware that in having ANY custody dispute and going before a judge to settle it, they have entered “Conciliation Court Land” (I think. NOTE: I’m not an attorney, and reader is advised to consult, law, a licensed attorney or a better source before acting on any FYI information I post, from other sites, hereon!)

Basically when there is a custody DISPUTE (parents cannot work it out separately) in — I believe most counties in the US, but don’t know for sure — that opens the doorway for all THIS:

(CALIFORNIA LAW — which may explain where all the behavioral scientists get off in studying your children and collecting data from courthouses about this or that):

1814. (a) In each county in which a family conciliation court is
established, the superior court may appoint one supervising counselor of conciliation and one secretary to assist the family conciliation court in disposing of its (ITS, not YOUR) business and carrying out its functions. In
counties which have by contract established joint family
conciliation court services, the superior courts in contracting
counties jointly may make the appointments under this subdivision.
(b) The supervising counselor of conciliation has the power to do all of the following:
(1) Hold conciliation conferences with parties to, and hearings
in, proceedings under this part, and make recommendations concerning
the proceedings to the judge of the family conciliation court.
(2) Provide supervision in connection with the exercise of the
counselor's jurisdiction as the judge of the family conciliation
court may direct.
(3) Cause reports to be made, statistics to be compiled, and records to be kept as the judge of the family conciliation court may direct.
(4) Hold hearings in all family conciliation court cases as may be
required by the judge of the family conciliation court, and make
investigations as may be required by the court to carry out the
intent of this part.
(5) Make recommendations relating to marriages where one or both
parties are underage.
(6) Make investigations, reports, and recommendations as provided
in Section 281 of the Welfare and Institutions Code under the
authority provided the probation officer in that code.
(7) Act as domestic relations cases investigator. (8) Conduct mediation of child custody and visitation disputes.
(c) The superior court, or contracting superior courts, may also appoint,
with the consent of the board of supervisors, associate counselors of conciliation and other office assistants as may be necessary to assist the family conciliation court in disposing of its business.

Which, for the record, may or may not relate to YOUR business or intents in being there.
In fact, the two purposes are often at odds. But did you know what its business was to start with?
This is not told you in the basic self-help legal center, but it appears to be so....

The associate counselors shall carry out their duties
under the supervision of the supervising counselor of conciliation
and have the powers of the supervising counselor of conciliation.
Office assistants shall work under the supervision and direction of
the supervising counselor of conciliation.
(d) The classification and salaries of persons appointed under this section shall be determined by: (1) The board of supervisors of the county in which a noncontracting family conciliation court operates.
(2) The board of supervisors of the county which by contract has the responsibility to administer funds of the joint family
conciliation court service.

The county commissioners (or, “Board of Supervisors of the County”) in which a conciliation court operates appoint the classification and salaries of people helping there work. Got that? (Judges, in California, are to be paid by the state — not the counties).

SO — when here comes the United States (federal) Child Support & Welfare System and says — “we will fund you, only it’s a $2/$1 relationship (or the 66/34% effect), …

and we also believe that you should be running some marriage, fatherhood promotion, abstinence education, supervised visitation, mediation, counseling and parent education classes too, or other “access/visitation” programs — to reduce the overall divorce rate, which WE assert relates to the overall POVERTY RATE for which we are (see?? ) giving your state $XX b/million per year — if you want it that is…”

– GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE STATES (AND COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF CONCILIATION COURTS) ARE GOING TO LISTEN.

AND JUDGES ARE LIKELY TO ORDER SERVICES — THAT’S HOW WE GET THE INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOME OF THESE NONPROFITS AND INDIVIDUAL JUDGES ON SPECIFIC CUSTODY CASES THEY ARE TO HELP PARENTS SETTLE THEIR “DISPUTES,” and this JUST — PERHAPS — MIGHT INVOLVE FORCING THAT COUPLE TO GO SIT IN FRONT OF A COUNTY-PAID COUNSELOR (OR MEDIATOR), OR TAKE CLASSES BY A JUDGE- LAWYER-RUN PROGRAM THAT QUALIFIES FOR SOME OF THE GRANTS. . .

.Which may explain why American Lawyer Media — (or quite a few others visiting the same site) are somewhat interested in my post on “Kids Turn” . . . or why the California Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts (perhaps) may be interested in my reporting on the A/V grants, or OCSE — or “AFCC” which includes personnel with a penchant for ordering a whole lot of these types of income-producing programs:

(CODE, continued — but in more normal print so it will wrap to the margins right):

1815. (a) A person employed as a supervising counselor of conciliation or as an associate counselor of conciliation shall have all of the following minimum qualifications: {{NOTICE THE FIELDS}}

(1) A master’s degree in psychology, social work, marriage, family and child counseling, or other behavioral science substantially related to marriage and family interpersonal relationships.

(2) At least two years of experience in counseling or psychotherapy, or both, preferably in a setting related to the areas of responsibility of the family conciliation court and with the ethnic population to be served.

(3) Knowledge of the court system of California and the procedures used in family law cases. {{notice this is qualification #3, not #1}}

(4) Knowledge of other resources in the community that clients can be referred to for assistance.

(5) Knowledge of adult psychopathology and the psychology of families.

(6) Knowledge of child development, child abuse, clinical issues relating to children, the effects of divorce on children, the effects of domestic violence on children, and child custody research sufficient to enable a counselor to assess the mental health needs of children.

(7) Training in domestic violence issues as described in Section 1816. {{notice this is #7, not #2, although DV issues do result in disputed custody situations that come before this court!}}

(b) The family conciliation court may substitute additional experience for a portion of the education, or additional education for a portion of the experience, required under subdivision (a).

(c) This section does not apply to any supervising counselor of conciliation who was in office on March 27, 1980.

Does that explain why your life as a disputed custody parent (if that’s you) are now filled with these social science, behavioral modification, psychopathology & psychology of families & psychotherapist personnel?

NOW — a voice from 1977. I notice that it was published in the National Council on Family Relations. Who are they? Well not in this post, but this is the grant they got recently from our government (HHS) to keep marriages together or help persuade more people to marry

(click on name to see what the grant 90FM0001 was about, from 2004-2008)(then click on the grant# and see that its 2011 continuation for only $785,612 was continued at Utah State U. Utah appears to be a very marrying state, one might think, given the prevailing religion..

Abstract

Counseling processes utilized by the Santa Clara County Conciliation Court in in resolving litigated visitation and custody disputes are described. The responsiveness of parents and their children is discussed as are the roles of both counselor and judge in these matters. A sample case reflecting a broad range of family dynamics is presented and the procedure by which cases are received and evaluated is reported. The practical and salutary features of this court-oriented program are set forth.(Excerpt): “It has been acknowledge for some time by judges and lawyers, as well as those inviduals affected (note order — judges & lawyers 1st, affected people, 2nd) that the process by which custody and visitation issues are decided is in need of change. With that in mind, THE CONCILIATION SERVICE OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY (California) SUPERIOR COURT IN 1972 LAUNCHED A PILOT PROGRAM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FULLY INTEGRATED INTO ITS FAMILY COURT PROCEDURES (caps & emphases= mine). PROFESSIONAL MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM’S IMPLEMENTATION….At the calling of the Family Court Calendar each morning and each afternoon, all those awaiting hearing on visitation matters are promptly and directly referred to the court’s Conciliation Service. (etc.)

That’s how the counselors get in there. . . . Note the date –1972. The AFCC (which is an association of judges, lawyers, and exactly these types of counselors — must be coincidence!) didn’t actually finish getting caught and forced to incorporate (in IL) til around 1975. No-fault divorce was here or near, and FEMINISM was on the Ascent in America…. This caused some marital issues, obviously. ….

WHAT I WAS NOT TOLD — EVER — BY ANY COURTHOUSE I ENTERED< ANYWHERE< OR ANY MEDIATOR:

WERE YOU? WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?

WHO HAS JURISDICTION IF YOU HAVE A CUSTODY DISPUTE?

THIS IS A 2009 blog from an attorney who works in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. It’s not hard to understand, it’s fairly clear — but were you told?

When a controversy exists between spouses, or when a controversy relating to child custody or visitation exists between parents (regardless of their marital status), and the controversy might otherwise result in divorce, annulment, legal separation, or the disruption of the household, and there is a minor child of the spouses or parents whose welfare might be affected thereby, the Family Conciliation Court has jurisdiction over the controversy, the parties to the controversy, and all persons having any relation to the controversy. Where the controversy involves domestic violence, the Family Conciliation Court has jurisdiction over the controversy, whether or not the parties have a minor child.

The purpose of filing a Petition for Conciliation is to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction to preserve the marriage, to effect a reconciliation of the parties, or to amicably settle the controversy to avoid further litigation over the issue.

While this is talking specifically about someone wishing to stop the divorce via a “petition of conciliation,” the existence of this code – has affected all “custody disputes” and also how domestic violence is adjudicated. Cindy Ross (also of California, and who writes better) described:

(notice — this is an older post, 2/19/2003) and talks more about the impact.

AFCC was originally established in California as the means to enact Conciliation Court Law (CA Family Codes 1800-1852), an obscure set of codes used to prevent divorce in counties where the court itself deems it necessary to “promote the public welfare by preserving, promoting, and protecting family life and the institution of matrimony“. [15] While the Conciliation Court identifies children’s rights to “both parents”, it is used only to assist fathers take custody away from mothers and/or to otherwise gain inappropriate or illegal “access” to children.

Enacting Conciliation Court Law gives the family court jurisdiction over domestic violence cases, in violation of appropriate family codes and “child’s best interests” laws. For example, in California, while Family Code §3044 establishes a presumption that sole or joint custody for a parent convicted of domestic violence is not in the best interests of children, Conciliation Court codes are used not only to assist abusive men get custody, but to help them avoid criminal prosecution. [16] Because blame is shifted to mothers by concealing evidence of paternal crimes against women and children, in the Conciliation Court, victims of abuse (not perpetrators) get convicted in accordance with PAS “threat therapy”. [17]

PAS court-ordered threats include jail terms for mothers and institutionalization of children to convince them that the abuse never occurred, but their mothers are crazy. [18] PAS threats have been linked to the death of at least one child. When forced to “choose” between visiting his violent father in a positive frame of mind, or having his mother jailed for his refusal, Nathan Grieco chose suicide instead. [19]

The Conciliation Court uses PAS methodology to give abusive men the legal upper hand. However, “shared parenting” has become the rallying cry of the fathers’ rights movement, primarily because joint custody also means no child support obligations. When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get custody and get out of paying child support, they instigate frivolous litigation for their own financial gain. They take kickbacks and other improper payments to rig the outcomes of the cases.

She hasn’t reported on a few others factors, but at least this explains why, when coming in for a divorce, the court seems more interested in assigning you a few (dozen) experts. As also explained (again, long ago) on

… Particularly the Family Law System which includes the Courts, Attorneys, Family Services, Psychologists and Therapists,Visitation Monitors, Ad-Litems, Social Workers, Child Protection Agencies and all of the agencies that support these so-called professionals.

Collusion among individuals within the family law system takes place to extract assets from troubled parents. The system is designed to increase the wealth of the family law professionals at the expense and heartbreak of families. Corrupt practices abound. This website is dedicated to exposing the corruption in detail. Areas where corruption exists are identified below.

To which I’d add — and related federal programs, as they may be available.

To people who file civil restraining orders — this information is not shown them (last I heard), but if children are involved, they are then escorted (at least in my area) to a quick run by the local family mediator –who just happens to be in this conciliation court. The place looks, acts, and sounds like a courthouse, but in fact it is a support service, under conciliation law, to a conciliation court. Funny that, when divorce actions sometimes read “irreconciliable differences” — and yet someone is going to give it a try, for public benefit. Or at least pretend to. Heck, it’s a job, right?

I know many women who filed for safety and ended up in this court before they knew what hit. Sometimes the actions are consolidated Ex Parte to get them into this venue. Then we wonder why, when we talk about matters of law, due process, (particularly DV law), or even crimiinal matters, the judges, GALs, and evaluators jsut cannot hear — and talk a different language (as above, see the code).

The entity which lobbied for conciliation code to start with, in California, is known as the AFCC (association of family and CONCILIATION courts — get it?). Their job is to extract as much wealth as possible for as long as possible (this may include from extended family, foster care situations, adoptive families, you name it) and try to convince — or force — you to believe that this is in the best interests of what you think are YOUR children, but they know (by knowing about this section of code) are actually NOT your children — not until you and the Dad can agree.Your judge or lawyer is bad? Your ex done you wrong? Start a blog and unload there — but I am more interest in system change and reporting how systems have changed over time. When I feel I’ve said this well enough (or as well as I can on this blog), then I’ll stop saying it. Don’t hold your breath.

SO, ABOUT THIS BLOG:

Scroll down to “READ THIS FIRST” page for a history of family law starting from the consequences of it, back down to the shady beginnings, one generation after women got the vote and between the world wars. Yep, that’s when the first law was passed, which eventually morphed, evolved, or as one summary puts it, “metastasized” into what we have now. And, like Hollywood, and other exports, this one seems to have originated in Sunny California, Southern part…

This post doesn’t contain any porn, graphic violence, or disgusting images (as I recall), but it is going to include plain talk on what comes from papering over these things.

[2011 update]. I investigate and report on corporations and nonprofits taking business from the court system, and taking diversionary monies from needy families through the 1996 TANF welfare reform and OCSE loopholes.

Originally the blog was intended to develop and report on matters covered (since ab. 1993) at http://www.NAFCJ.net and others, which at least gave a sensible explanation for weird behaviors by family court officials. I continued researching, observing, and learning.

A good deal also covers the “Faith-Based Behaviors” which have been enabled to expand beyond even the “Fatherhood Factor Funding” of 1994 & 1995. In 2001, GWB began office with two executive orders, 13998 and 13999, which opened the door for these (crooks).

Recently, articles are hitting the press about the scandalous “take the money and run” grantees, the “steer the money to our friends” process exhibited by program managers at the state level, and more. Not to mention, the black hole of undistributed child support collections, which (as reported in part by Richard Fine in 1999) shows a system of bribery and kickbacks are steering custody results, and kicking too many kids into bad situations — or state care.

I also note that tools available to the public to study these things are indequate and limited; that there exists — both on database and (some indications) literally, a dual-docketing system, such that decisions made with a parent’s or child’s name on them — which bring federal program funding opportunities — can continue without that parent or child’s knowledge. Some of these do not seem to require a judge’s signature. Others may have such signature, but litigants somehow can’t get a copy of their own files. The database TAGGS is not set up to produce truly flexible reports which would help track down who is doing what and for whom. It is there for an appearance of transparency, as far as I am concerned. Before I re-read NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’ site) and began my own research, I didn’t run into a single protective mother or DV advocate who even used this database, or told women — or men — about it.

Above all, it’s time to let the idols, the myths about justice hit the dust (which is where idols belong anyhow) and go roll up the sleeves and start looking things up.

My blog is dense to read, and shows affects of PTSD (many times) — BUT I’ll bet you will not find many others reporting what I do.

Fathers in custody battles need to know — it’s NOT about you, or your story, or a particular judge; it’s about the system. Fathers also need to know that SOME of us mothers, while we do not back up one inch on abuse is wrong, or buy your stories about how much false allegations of it exist, we do know that you, too, have been extorted by at least the OCSE system, and we will work along the non-rabid community of fathers to do something about the kickbacks and lack of accountability.

And I personally wish to tell leaders of domestic violence coalitions and certain other agencies receiving major HHS and/or DOJ funding that — we mothers exiting abuse do NOT appreciate our legitimate needs having been SOLD OUT by your groups, to take funding for speculative theories and PR/educational campaigns on what “prevents family violence” let alone “poverty.”

NOW –that’s the N.O.W. — has no excuse for basically dropping the ball, not when in 2002 an excellent Family Court Report laid out the roadmap, and 2005 your California Leader called for an investigation of HHS use of Fatherhood Funds. (What she didn’t realize then is WE have to do this investigation, then bring it to legislators). NOW is still active in matters of domestic violence, and has a Family Law Task Force — but other priorities. NOW has done a lot (and I think them), but here — for all to see — is a clear indication that (as with other DV groups) the “Family Law” issue is not seen as a Violence Against Women issue:

Suffice it to say, I think a more singular focus is needed, and as NOW didn’t continue to report some of the material about Bush, Fatherhood, Welfare Reform, and other issues. I don’t even share 100% of those issues, or agree with all of them. I want to stay alive and exercise my rights, and my kids to NEVER have to repeat what happened and what they witnessed, while growing up, half in violence, and half in a custody war with a basis in extortion from more than one sector, with them, their distress, their simply being minors, as the bait. But we all need some NOW — because without a dose of them, it’d be The USA of Shari’a (Christian, Jewish, Muslim & Mormon versions, plus the same general themes among the agnostics and atheists). It’d be off the deep end and in over our heads. But they lost the focus on the HHS matters, which are also national matters because they involve the economy and systems change to push marriage and fatherhood programs (notice, I didn’t say to push marriage, or fatherhood — but to push the programs).

LIKEWISE:

The NCADV and Domestic Violence Statewide Coalitions have no excuse. Stop SELLING stuff (including conference attendances, memberships) and start reporting — for free– on welfare reform and what it did to battered women who are also mothers’ chances of EVER getting completely free from such dangerous relationships. You do NOT speak for mothers who have their lives or kids’ lives on their line.

Family Violence Prevention Fund is now “Futures Without Violence” (facelift, namechange, physical move to the SF Praesidio). I went up down and around the SF Bay Area looking for help, only to find out (once I got regular internet access and knew to look) that you, too, believe that the real way to prevent violence by men against women is to take funding from wealthy foundations who believe that the way to stop violence against women is to make sure that there is a man in all their homes, and a father in every abused child’s life. Then I learned you were a resource center for women like me, and I know lots of us in the area.

That’s from Health and Human Services. Overall (not that this site is usually complete) USASPENDING.GOV shows the OVW funding as well:

Total Dollars:$41,512,886

Transactions:1 – 25 of 92

$34 million of this was straight grants, some was contracts…..

Somehow (when I check “Grants/HHS” at USASPENDING.gov — only $13 million shows up)

so often, “Discretionary”:

Program Office

Recovery Act Indicator

Award Number

Award Title

Budget Year

Action Issue Date

CFDA Number

CFDA Program Name

Award Class

Principal Investigator

Sum of Actions

CB

90XA0109

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

1

08/03/2005

93670

Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities

DISCRETIONARY

ESTA SOLER

$ 496,000

Used to write up a report on yourself?

Title: International Center to End Violence: Addressing Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Neglect. Final Report to: DHHS/Administration on Children, Youth and Families under CAPTA. Grant Number 90-XA-0109. October 31, 2007.Published: 2007

Abstract: This final report discusses the activities and outcomes of the federally funded Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF), an organization committed to building safer and stronger families by ending domestic violence, sexual assault, and other forms of abuse against women and children. Major activities and accomplishments of the FVPF are described, including: the development of an Interactive Learning and Exhibit Center, the development of the International Center to End Violence,** and the implementation of training programs and experiential learning for engaging everyday gatekeepers and young students. Activities of the FVPF’s Teacher Training Academy are also highlighted, as well as public educational and engagement activities and school-based programming.

And we were the first to engage men – as coaches, mentors, and positive role models to boys.

New Home, new name – in the SF Praesidio (while – in this area — I know women who went homeless after custody-switch in the family courts; I almost did. That’s partly a child support matter, and a child support motivation. Where’s your blog — your website — your publication of how child support and the state of the OCSE/welfare reform affects custody decisions?? Which, in the case of women leaving violence — affects their and their kids’ safety and well-being?)

Montgomery Street Barracks

Built in the 1890s, the six red-brick Montgomery Street Barracks that frame the Main Parade have become Presidio icons. All will be rehabilitated and will feature activities and services for visitors, such as restaurants, galleries, and cultural institutions. Activities will spill out on to the Barracks’ expansive front porches and the Main Parade Ground. The Walt Disney Family Museum opened in one of the barracks in fall 2009 and the International Center to End Violence will open in another in spring 2011.

(OVW grant for this center includes a 2009 one of $2,000,000)

Yes you did engage boys and men — jumped on the bandwagon: Fatherhood as a tool to stop domestic violence.

Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children.

In partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women, we have trained practitioners from over 40 communities across the US, including: DV advocates, supervised visitation, batterers intervention and fatherhood programs, judges and other law enforcement, and child protection workers

(yet — no mention, for the sake of the single, female-headed households in the State of Ohio, that it has a Fatherhood Commission, Fatherhood Practitioners, Fatherhood Summits, and that a Legislator is still running around strengthening fatherhood to stop child abuse (like that’s the solution); that it had an Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, that is ripping off the public – in a large way — in an effort to turn back the clocks to the 1950s, pre-feminism and pre-VAWA?

And taking money and direction from Annie E. Casey Foundation, which virtually ensures that NONE of your media campaigns are going to tell women such as myself the relevant facts about 1996 Welfare Form, of the existence of the National Fatherhood Initiative (from the start, 1994, same year as VAWA) or how these funds have been used in family court situations. It sure has changed the tune — if, indeed, the tune ever was anything other than media campaign, technical assistance, and training since about 1997ff… While I am very thankful to be informed that strangulation, for example, is a high indicator of lethality, as a mother experiencing it in the home, I had that figured out (particularly in contexts of the talk that went along with it). Or that my dentist should’ve reported or further questioned (he didn’t) a certain suspicious & bloody incident involving my teeth.

“On Thursday, October 20th, eighteen men graduated from the Newark Y Fatherhood Program. Funded through the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 167 men have participated in our workshops during the past year. …A major highlight of theFatherhood Graduation was the presentation of awards from President Barack Obama to the Y’s CEO, Michael Bright and the Director of the Fatherhood Program, Daryl Brown. ThePresidential Award was given in recognition of their “devotion to service and for doing all you can to shape a better tomorrow for our great Nation.”

FVPF Program purpose (from the tax return, the 2009 Form 990, below):

“1. TO PREVENT VIOLENCE WITHIN THE HOME, AND IN THE COMMUNITY,

TO HELP THOSE WHOSE LIVES ARE DEVASTATED BY VIOLENCE BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIVE FREE OF VIOLENCE.”

4. Describe the exempt purpose achievements for each of the 3 largest program services by expenses:

INTERNATIONAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE – THE FVPF HAS HELPED CRAFT LANDMARK FEDERAL LEGISLATION, CO-FOUNDED A NATIONAL NETWORK TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST IMMIGRANT WOMEN , AND CONTINUES TO MUSTER THE FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE RESOURCES TO SAFEGUARD IMMIGRANT WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN – AMONG THE MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. THE FVPF HAS FORMED PROGRAMMATIC PARTNERSHIPS AROUND THE WORLD IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CLINICS TO EXCHANGE WISDOM, IMPROVE HEALTHCARE, AND RAISE PUBLIC AWARENESS.

HEALTH – THE FVPF HAS HELPED EXPOSE A CONNECTION BETWEEN HISTORY OF ABUSE AND CURRENT HEALTH,** FURTHER SPOTLIGHTING THE CRITICAL NEED FOR SUSTAINING ASSESSMENT, INTERVENTION, AND ADVOCACY IN CLINICAL SETTINGS. THE ORGANIZATION PROMOTES A HEALTHCARE RESPONSE THAT CONSIDERS THE ENTIRE LIFESPAN AND THAT INCLUDES PREVENTION. THE FVPF OPERATES THE NATION’S HEALTH RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INFORMATION TO THOUSANDS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND OTHERS EACH YEAR. THE ORGANIZATION HAS ALSO DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED STATE-WIDE PLANS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

**astounding. And this was figured out when? …..

(this is the “We Got Fatherhood Funding” segment) PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS – THE ORGANIZATION LAUNCHED THE FIRST-EVER NATIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – THERE’S NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – IN 1994. {{yes, but this is 2009!}} NOW THE ORGANIZATION IS REACHING YOUNG MEN AND BOYS THROUGH THE COACHING BOYS INTO MEN CAMPAIGN, ENCOURAGING MEN TO TALK TO THE YOUNG MEN AND BOYS IN THEIR LIVES THAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS WRONG. THROUGH MEDIA AND THROUGH WORK WITH ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS, COACHES, AND OTHERS WHO REACH MEN AND BOYS, THE FVPF IS DELIVERING THE MESSAGE THAT MEN CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE ORGANIZATION’S RELATED FOUNDING FATHERS CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGES MEN TO STEP FORWARD ON FATHER’S DAY AND JOIN IN MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT ENDING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

the search I just did shows their assets about $22million — and their contributions and expenditures similar, at around $13 million. It shows a nice chart (I searched by EIN#)and has nice summaries, bar chats, etc.

Salaries in 2009 — not that running a large non-profit shouldn’t be well-rewarded. They have offices (it says) in Boston, Washington, D.C. & San Francisco.

Except that this group — in an area where women are still being stalked, robbed of (their children, among other things), having child support reduced to nothing or being forced to pay their former batterers (innumerable), finding next to no response with law enforcement when this occurs, women have been burnt and found hogtied around a road sign (2006, unidentified, Oakland-Temescal), kidnapped from their homes, stabbed repeatedly, then dropped off on the side of the road to bleed to death in front of motorists (Oakland/Orinda Elnora Caldwell), shot at work while IN tollbooths (2009, Ross), shot in church parking lots on a weekday morning (2007, McCall, Oakland), doused with gas and burnt alive, murdered and put in car trunks, shot (along with 6 others in beauty salons (2011, Seal Beach, CA Fournier 8 killed, 2008 Torres, Martinez 3 killed including responding officer),. . .

killed at court-ordered weekend exchanges and buried in a shallow grave only to be found when the murderer father plea-bargained it down by agreeing to locate the body (Wife missing 2006, conviction 2008, Oakland Reiser). Children have been also kidnapped galore, sometimes being murdered afterwards by overentitled fathers, while D.A.’s are soliciting campagns to standardize their Family Justice Center model in D.C. and in the California Legislature. I haven’t even linked to children and bystanders in this list; nor is it complete — but a LOT of it happened around divorce, separation and child custody — and yet where is even a mention of the AFCC, CRC, or the welfare reform that funds “increased noncustodial parenting time” and forces women to try to co-parent with their batterers under fatherhood theory — such as you also have??

Here is the California Charitable Registration results for their 2010 filing (as “Futures WIthout Violence”):

Fiscal Begin:

01-JAN-10

Fiscal End:

31-DEC-10

Total Assets:

$36,603,585.00

Gross Annual Revenue:

$17,118,149.00

RRF Received:

14-JUN-11

Returned Date:

990 Attached:

Y

Status:

Rejected

(For the record, it was incorporated as a nonprofit in California, in a simple filing with Esta Soler and a few others, in August 1989. To get the VAWA passed in 5 years is indeed an accomplishment, or may reflect connections the women had initially, I do not know.)

The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

1. The $225 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.

Must’ve just forgot — I’m sure they can afford $225.

Another notice says they forgot to attach a list of contributors; also 8/26/2011.

We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/10. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.

The copy of the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF, including all attachments, filed with the Registry must be identical to the document filed by the organization with the Internal Revenue Service. The Registry retains Schedule B as a confidential record for IRS Form 990 and 990-EZ filers.

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit a complete copy of Schedule B, Schedule of

Contributors, for the fiscal year noted above, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service. all correspondence to the undersigned.

I think that along with this many people earning over $100K per years, someone should’ve taken – I did — maybe an hour of their precious PR time to read some of the material put out by UNpaid mothers who have watched and documented what the family court systems is doing to their current safety levels. It’s not as though we aren’t on the web and aren’t talking !!!

2009 SALARIES OF FVPF, or, currently the ICEV: (Salary to left, “estimated other compensation from other organizations”) to the right of each name

$234,229 ESTA SOLER PRESIDENT + $71,069

$168,216 THOMAS FERGUSON CFO,CAO + $14,717

$ 166,265 DEBBIE LEE SR.VICE PRESIDENT + $34,928

(also a program director for a joint project with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “Start Strong, Building Healthy Teen Relationships”)

“Start Strong: Building Healthy Teen Relationshipsis a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in collaboration with Futures Without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Blue Shield of California Foundation* are investing $18 million in 11 Start Strong communities across the country to identify and evaluate best practices in prevention to stop dating violence and abuse before it starts.

Or — take a look at the assemblage of personnel on the campaign to end teen pregnancy, underneath this study of “What Research Tells Us about Latino Parenting Practices and their Relationship to Teen Pregnancy” starting with Thomas Kean, Chair of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (and former Governor of NJ). These are, basically, the rich studying and categorizing the poor — by ethnicity and about every other category — in order to better manage the population. They are particularly interested in breeding habits, which I think is borne out of fear of being outbred (take a look at the U.S. Congress by ethnicity and gender, and make an educated guess why….)

$ 163,251 LENI MARIN SR.VICE PRESIDENT + $50,806. (That would probably, with creativity, feed & house 3 families in the Bay Area on those benefits alone….)

Other projects on the 990 — grandiose in scope — described on Schedule O:

FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4D, OTHER PROGRAM SERVICES:

WORKPLACE – THE NATIONAL WORKPLACE RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE FVPF, EMPLOYERS, AND UNIONS AROUND THE NATION THAT HAS REACHED MILLIONS OF AMERICANS. THIS PROJECT MAKES POSSIBLE EMPLOYER AND UNION DISSEMINATION OF HELPFUL, EASY-TO-FOLLOW INFORMATION TO EMPLOYEES AND UNION MEMBERS ON PREVENTING AND REDUCING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DEVELOPMENT OF WORKPLACE POLICIES ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND WORKPLACE SUPPORT OF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE VICTIMS. THE ORGANIZATION PROVIDES RESOURCES ONLINE THAT GIVE WORKPLACE LEADERS WHO WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE CLEAR AND IMMEDIATE EXPERT ASSISTANCE.

INTERNATIONAL CENTER TO END VIOLENCE – THE ORGANIZATION IS CREATING AN INTERNATIONAL CENTER IN SAN FRANCISCO AS A HUB OF EDUCATIONAL AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY TO ADVANCE US TOWARD A VIOLENCE-FREE SOCIETY. THE CENTER SEEKS TO PROMOTE THE VALUES OF RESPECT, EMPATHY, AND RESPONSIBILITY; EXPOSE THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE AND ITS IMPACT ON FAMILIES AND SOCIETIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD; ASSIST THE PUBLIC IN EXAMINING ROOT CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AND ITS INTERCONNECTIONS TO BIGOTRY AND HATE; AND ROUSE INDIVIDUALS EVERYWHERE TO TAKE A STAND AGAINST VIOLENCE, HATRED and BIGOTRY.

EXPENSES $ 220,101

and of course: another expense was “LEGAL $501,366

Well, I’ll find some of the descendants, if any, of the women mentioned above and tell them they didn’t die in vain, the

International Center to End Violence has a plan...

I believe a better use of time would for be for these directors to go hang out in homeless camps and at soup kitchens and ask the people how they came to be homeless, and in need of eating at soup kitchens. In the years that FVPF funds were doubling and increasing, I have noticed more and more women in those lines. Preach for hire in an open marketplace– not at their expense! While this group is not actually (that I can see) taking money direct from money dedicated to welfare, they ARE taking a helluva a lot from the HHS pot to forward the fund’s personal (shared by others, but it is personal to the fund) belief (or assertions) that more training will stop violence. Really? You just want my children and future grandchildren, currently this is in the USA, to fund your vision about fixing the WORLD? While in the entire time of their childhoods here, I can’t identify ONE thing that this group did to stop the battering in my home, or the family court gauntlet that followed. (And under what name is it doing business in San Francisco, anyhow?)

Incidentally (see TAGGS grants) — many of the grants which would otherwise go to shelters are going to this type of “training and technical support” activity – it’s lumped under the same labelThen.

To be fair, here is a 2010 statement with a California Assemblyperson naming FVPF (Futures without Violence) founder Esta Soler his 2010 Woman of the Year. It also says the organization was started — with a federal fund — in 1980 30 years ago. Perhaps in DC or Washington – the charitable and sec of state records in California both say about 21 years ago (as of 2010), i.e. 1989 – 1999 – 2009 -that’s 20 years.

Sacramento, CA – Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) chose Esta Soler, the head of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, as his 2010 Woman of the Year.

“I am proud to announce Esta Soler, one of the world’s foremost experts on violence against women and children, to be Woman of the Year for Assembly District 13”, said Ammiano. “Esta is a pioneer who founded the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) nearly 30 years ago and made it one of the world’s leading violence prevention agencies.”

Under her direction, the FVPF was a driving force behind passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 – the nation’s first comprehensive federal response to the violence that plagues our families and communities. Congress reauthorized and expanded the law in 2000 and again in 2005.

“It’s a tremendous honor to receive this award from Assemblymember Ammiano, a wonderful friend to all of us working to end domestic, dating and sexual violence and help victims,” said Family Violence Prevention Fund President and Founder Esta Soler. “At a time when state funding for domestic violence programs is in peril, we especially appreciate champions like Tom Ammiano.”

Esta Soler first established the organization with a federal grant in 1980.

This 1980 is commonly cited — BUT unless it’s in Washington, D.C. (a corporations search page I can’t seem to sign into yet), the SF one was definitely 1989 — and thus the 1980 statement is an exaggeration. If the grant was received in 1980, I’d like to know how much, from which department and under what name. Most on-line databases don’t go back that far. I hope to research this a little further perhaps to better understand this organization.

It has become the nation’s leading expert on violence against women and children, the source of numerous trailblazing prevention and intervention campaigns, and a major force in shaping public policies that prevent violence and help victims in the U.S. and worldwide.

Soler, along with the honorees, was recognized today in the 2010 Woman of the Year ceremony. Each year, members of the California State Assembly and California State Senate honor a woman from their district who has distinguished herself in service to her community.

MINNESOTA-STYLE DV ORGANIZATIONS

The Minnesoh-tans (DAIP, MPDI, BWJP, Praxis, et al.) have done heroic things — but that’s no excuse for ‘taxation without representation” and the early-on insistence that your model CCR and its institutional ethnography become a nationwide model, without proof it works. And, it doesn’t. I hit on this particular set of nonprofits pretty hard throughout this blog, s am giving them a break today, except to mention that it took me a long time to realize that what “MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT INC.” was actually about — (and which its name says) – developing (and selling) programs,

Tim Carpenter reportedrecently some juicy details about a secret April meeting to design Brownback’s marriage agenda. The Topeka Capital-Journal uncovered some information on Brownback’s plans through a Kansas Open Records request.

The Kansas government spent $13,000 to bring together 20 mostly far-right marriage “experts” for the closed door meeting.

Organizations represented included the Heritage Foundation, Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, National Center for Fathering, Stronger Families, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Marriage Savers, Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, and National Center for African American Marriages and Parenting.

Thanks to information from Carpenter and sources, we know something of what Brownback has in mind, even though the details of the meeting remain confidential.

And (from a link in this article to another one) — ALL of these characters should be knowledgeable, household names, to anyone sitting under CADV state teachings or in their meetings. They deserve to know how things got started, and where they are going now, above the din of same-sex marriage and abortion rights issues. This affects mothers AND fathers:

Brownback program promotes marriage

Wade Horn, who redefined President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, preached a gospel that encouraged poor women to marry their way out of poverty.

Marriage Savers creator Mike McManus said clergy members typically did a lousy job preparing couples for marriage and secular therapists were more likely to increase divorce among spouses in crisis.

This threesome was among 20 people who met behind closed doors in Topeka to share marriage program ideas with Brownback and executives at the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

…In his follow-up letter to Brownback obtained by The Topeka Capital-Journal, [[Mike]] McManus said Kansas should prohibit no-fault divorce unless there was proof of physical abuse or adultery. A Kansas law ought to be passed, he said, allowing judges to select a “responsible spouse,” which would always be the person opposed to divorce. The statute would allow the responsible adult to receive up to 66 percent of child visitation and 100 percent of family assets in the divorce.

Any idea what this exposes women to? (read on). They are already being used as disposable wombs in too many marriages; if the beatings or abuse or virtual slavery (it happens!) can be severe enough that SHE wants out, then in Kansas he doesn’t even have to go through the motions of fighting for most of the kids and ALL of the assets! This does not protect women or children!

Horn, who resigned from HHS to take a job with Deloitte Consulting, departed the Bush administration amid reports of cronyism in awarding federal grants to the National Fatherhood Initiative he founded.

Helen Alvare, a member of the law faculty at George Mason who also was invited to Topeka, said she admired Sarah Palin’s devotion to family and professional achievement. In 2008, Alvare said Palin was “what a lot of women aspire to be on their best day.”

California writer Christelyn Karazin, who had a child out of wedlock before marrying, believed so strongly in the power of a man and woman to raise children she organized an event called “No Wedding, No Womb.”

This is portrayed as spontaneous blogging “NWNW” — so what was she doing in a secret meeting in Kansas? Flown in at Kansans’ expense, and in the company of people such as David Blankenhorn and Wade Horn? !! She saw the light (is now married) and so everyone else must see it the same way? Listen to some ex-married women, girl!

It was primarily a call to the black community to take action against the birth of children without the “physical, financial and emotional protection” of a father and mother, she said.

Joyce Webb, who works with Catholic Charities’ Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, recommended SRS divert $1 million from federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to pay for a new marriage program. TANF money is earmarked for families living in poverty.

Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, who was included in one published list of participants but didn’t attend, said during a speech about the pro-marriage movement that Catholics and Christians had to be the “visible light” for people failing to grasp intricacies of the institution of marriage.

SRS Secretary Robert Siedlecki, responsible for implementing the governor’s marriage initiative, said thousands of Kansans who divorce each year lacked the skills and knowledge to form sustainable relationships.* Brownback wants SRS to help fill that information gap, he said.

*that “lack the skills” phrase is a buzz word to bring on the marriage educators, which is also a growing HHS trend and probably public law by now.

Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat who voted against confirmation of Brownback’s choice of SRS secretary, said he was intrigued by the governor’s simultaneous talk about removing government from the lives of the average Kansan and creating a state marriage program drenched in faith-based advocacy.

(A little QUICK research on my part here See the URL above: He’s Baptist, Regent University, a Minister, adapted the PAIRS (which I think got HHS funding) curriculum for Christians, and just changed the FLorida nonprofit’s name to “CONNECTUS4LIFE, INC.” in 2002 (per Florida corporations search page called “sunbiz.org.” EIN#562283483. This is specifically incorporated as a “faith-based organization” and talks about the preachers involved. This one (I just looked) seems a tidy little income — $60K raised, he gets $16K as head of the nonprofit, and gets to write off $42 of expenses running marriage enrichment seminars.

“Believing that marriage is a covenant relationship ordained by God,

we as pastors and ministers in the Greater Jacksonville area are committed

to ensure that these marriages (WHICH ones?) will endure til death.”

That’s a creed — not an incorporation!

“we are dedicated to strengthening marriages as we seek to”

I attended domestic violence support groups, being a Christian, towards the end of my “cohabitation” (with my spouse). Getting there was not easy; they were night-times. Want to know what % of the women there were pastor’s and deacon’s wives? I can’t name names, but the answer is — PLENTY. At least one had tried to kill his wife; the deacons knew, and it was a LONG time before he lost that position….

He also had a role in Florida Government: Served “four years on FLorida’s Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives.” That commission name was a new one on me, so I just looked up, to find out, from “www.Floridafathers.org” that:

The 2003 Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 480, replacing the Florida Commission on Responsible Fatherhood with the Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives as of July 1, 2003.

The new commission will take a broader approach to strengthening families by detailing comprehensive statewide strategies for Florida to promote safe, violence-free, substance-abuse-free, respectful, nurturing and responsible parenting; including connection or reconnection of responsible parents, both mothers and fathers, with their children.

From the Kansas article, above, we now know what is meant by “responsible” parent. It means the one that, if he resists divorce, will get 100% of the assets and (at least) 66% of the children. Mom can struggle to enforce 34% of her visitation after she’s kicked out of the house with 0% of the assets, which has already been the case when women FLED the home for safety (with or without kids). So, is this progress? But the CADVs should’ve been monitoring and reporting on these things — although I know that FL CADV had their hands full with FL-AFCC on “parenting coordination” matters, around this time as I recall.

The Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives will each appoint six members to the commission by August 1, 2003, with at least half of the commissioners representing the private sector

The wording starts like this – and yes indeed, Florida did vote this Commission into existence in 2003:

(a) Families in this state deserve respect and support. Children need support and guidance from both mothers and fathers, and families need support and guidance from community systems to help them thrive.

(b) There are many problems facing families.

(and it gets even more brilliantly deductive from there. I provided the link).

. . .

(e) Assisting states to end dependence of low-income parents by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage and assisting states in encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families are the two of four stated purposes of federal welfare reform enacted in 1996 which have been largely neglected by states and for which states are now urging Congress to designate 10 percent of all welfare funds, specifically for relationship education and skills development, responsible fatherhood programs, and community support as it seeks to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act in 2002.

. . .

(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

(a) There is created within the Department of Children and Family Services, for administrative purposes, a commission, as defined in s. 20.03(10), called the Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives. The commission is independent of the head of the department. The commission is authorized to hire an executive director, a researcher, and an administrative assistant. The executive director shall report to, and serve at the pleasure of, the commission.

This “independence within a department” is key to steering grants to cronies. I’ve seen it in Ohio and we’re (above) witnessing it in Kansas, 2011, as we speak.

To understand some of this subculture — and after I’d been looking at the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative website for a good long while I finally noticed who was pushing the statewide Marriage Initiative, starting with at GRAB of TANF funds, and this was held up to other states as an example . . . .

I noticed “Jerry Regier” — and, for an example, here is the Wikipedia Timeline of his Job Descriptions. He came from OK in 2002, and by 2003, Florida is voting for a Commission on Marriage and Families within the Children and Family Services. (Mr. Regier eventually had to quit this post in FL under some scandal about steering grants to his, as I say, cronies — but ended up, for our purposes, in yet a worse place — back at HHS as Assistant Secretary of the ASPE (evaluates things) where he presided over glowing reports about his former work in Oklahoma. That’s how the Bush-based Babies Cookie-cutter commissions (etc.) generally crumbles. Scandal, scoot to another state, repeat… So look at this chart with some care, OK?

So, Jim Marks’ “Marriage for Life” organization was formed (I just learned) in 2002 as a “faith-based” organization — i.e., in the wake of GWBush’s open door executive orders for faith-based organizations of 2001. Many of these groups form to get the grants, spend the money, and then RUN, disbanding, or being dissolved for failure to file with the IRS (or their state).

**I have 1 or 2 comments on there on these matters. You’ll recognize which ones (just submitted another).

In a pre-Memorial Day (2011) announcement, Siedlecki reorganized SRS, which included putting Anna Pilato in a new position called Deputy Secretary for Strategic Development and Faith-Based Community Initiatives.

Are you getting a feel for this yet?

Pilato had served for five years in the Bush administration, including as director of the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

But Pilato, who is making $97,500 per year, says that in her job she wears two hats — strategic development and faith-based initiatives — and that the strategic development part of her job, which includes overseeing the design and development of staff for SRS, is by far the larger of the two.

. . .

Recently, SRS applied for a $6.6 million grant to pay for either faith-based or secular counseling that encouraged unwed parents to marry. Under the proposal, if the couple completed counseling, the state would pay the $86.50 marriage license fee.

But the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rejected the grant.

Protesters interrupted the second of Gov. Sam Brownback’s town hall meetings on childhood poverty Wednesday, standing up during the keynote speech and reciting some of their objections to Brownback’s policies.

One of the 14 protesters was arrested and another was detained for a short period.

The protest began as Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation fellow invited to give the keynote speech, delivered his remarks advocating marriage as a key way to end poverty. Protesters, most of them members of Occupy Wichita, stood silently with their backs to Rector for about 10 minutes, then began chanting their grievances once he completed his speech.

Organizers stopped the meeting for about 15 minutes, resuming after the protesters had left the downtown hotel where it was held.

That Rector should’ve had the podium at this second town hall, or the first, is a dire sign for Kansas: (article links to this):

That’s according to Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation fellow picked by Gov. Sam Brownback to keynote the first of his administration’s three planned meetings on childhood poverty this week.

. . .

Strong reaction

Shortly after Rector finished his remarks, Kari Ann Rinker, Kansas coordinator for the National Organization for Women, left the meeting room in anger.

“I was offended in there,” Rinker said. “The things he said, the inferences he made about women and women’s worth were offensive. As I looked around the room, I saw many other people looking to each other in shock and amazement.”

Rinker said the steady increase in births to young, single women was a cause for concern. But she said making available low-cost birth control and improving the women’s self-esteem and education would more effectively address the problem.

“The silver bullet is not wedded bliss,” she said.

Ms Rinker (appears very young, no?) should — with Kansas NOW — have been on top of this situation, should be teaching women about welfare reform and how the fatherhood movement got its two bits in on the situation diverting programs to promote fatherhood and marriage. (The information has been available on the web since 1993). For example, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation (the article says) was instrumental in Welfare Reform. The Congressional Record debates ON this welfare reform are framed in concern about too many women of color having babies ! (in other words, it has severely racist overtones). To let him get up there and spout off, the same rhetoric — which is PAID FOR INFORMATION!

The number one factor behind poverty here in the state of Kansas is the death of marriage,” he said, noting that 38 percent of children in Kansas today were born to unmarried women, compared to about 5 percent in the 1960s. “This is the most dramatic social transformation in the 20th century.”

OH? How about a few world wars (creating untold orphans) and women getting the vote, the creation of the personal income tax, taking currency off the gold standard, and the assassinations of JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr.? How about the advent of the internet, the decline of public education, — and how about the 2001 enablements of people like Robert Rector to get up and speak at government functions and expect faith-based organizations to drive the primary institutions around?

The protests illustrated how serious the issue of poverty is, said Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita.***

“These people are using this as an avenue to voice their opinion and exercise their freedom of speech,” she said.

(***search her name on my blog. She supported the last round of fatherhood initiatives in Kansas…. I commented on this).

The Heritage Foundation in Kansas is neither surprising, nor to be ignored. It explains a whole lotta backwards movement when it comes to safety for women and freedom for Americans — both genders, all ages.

A. K. Chesterton once said: “The proper study of political mankind is the study of power elites, without which nothing that happens could be understood.”

He added: “These elites, preferring to work in private, are rarely found posed for photographers, and their influence upon events has therefore to be deduced from what is known of the agencies they employ.”

Chesterton described those agencies: “Their goal was to work through such agencies, and financial support received from one or other or all three big American foundations–Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford — provides an infallible means of recognizing them.”

The Rockefellers made $200,000,000.00 from World War I. Henry Kissinger’s brother Walter heads the Allen Group. The super-wealthy (with the exception of some Du Ponts and the Fords) have long supported the Republican Party — the party of plutocratic oligarchy. “If not kings themselves, they are king-makers.” They have quick access to the White House no matter who is President. Other super-rich, such as the Rockefellers, affiliate with the Democratic Party. Politics in the U.S., no matter what party, is under the control of the super-rich, large corporations and the international bankers.

A 1995 Wall Street Journal observed the formidable influence of the Heritage Foundation on government policies since the Reagan era:

“WASHINGTON — With the Republicans’ rise to control Congress, think-tank power in the nation’s capital has shifted to the right. And no policy shop has more clout than the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“When GOP congressional staffers met in June with conservative leaders to help map current legislative efforts to cut federal funding for left-leaning advocacy groups, the closed-door meeting took place at Heritage headquarters. The group’s involvement wasn’t unusual. ‘Heritage is without question the most far-reaching conservative organization in the country in the war of ideas.’ House Speaker Newt Gingrich said early this year.

“Think tanks have long churned out studies that have wound up in official policy proposals. During Democratic times of power, the more liberal Brookings Institution has been a leading player here. Now, the 21-year-old Heritage Foundation, which rose to prominence in the Reagan years, is taking academic involvement to a new level.

“Over the first 100 days of the current GOP Congress, Heritage scholars testified before lawmakers 40 times–more than any other organization, Hill staffers say. Its scholars are credited by congressional members and staff as key architects of the House-passed welfare-overhaul plan and with inspiring some provisions in the GOP balanced-budget plan. ‘They talk to me sometimes 12 times a week,’ said Heritage budget analyst Scott Hodge earlier this year, explaining his ties to the staff of the House Budget Committee. ‘We–I mean House members–are putting together a final list of cuts.'”(5)

FACIST CONNECTIONSPaul Weyrich – considered the architect and mainstay of the conservative revolution – calls for “reclaiming the culture” and a “second American Revolution.” A look at the inflammatory, extremist rhetoric with racial and Inquisitorial overtones on the Free Congress Foundation web site should alarm Christians as to Weyrich’s real intent:

(etc.)

I encourage people to read this write-up on The Heritage Foundation from “SourceWatch.org” and understand (as I am beginning to)its relationship both financially and in purpose (ending TANF completely and eliminating the public education system in the United States) follows up on some serious international influence in the 1980s and 1990s. It took me a while to keep running across the information and understand it — but the Heritage Foundation, The Unification Church and its leaders’ intent to establish ONE world religion with him at the top (yep!) and the means by which the “faith-based operatives” (as I call them) move in and out of state-level, national-level posts and agencies, restructuring them IMMEDIATELY upon being hired (as happened with the Kansas SRS, above) – these are related. The fight is on. Read a segment — but don’t forget to go to the site and consider the international influence in covert wars by the US as well:

The Foundation also leaped to the defense of Ronald Reagan’s description of the former Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” a description that generated wide global rebuke as potentially inviting nuclear conflict and, at the very least, further poisoning East-West relations. But with strong support by Heritage and other influential conservatives, Reagan stood by the statement, refusing to retract it until the Soviet Union began to crumble.

In an attempt to build on its foreign policy influence, the Foundation also engages in domestic and social policy issues, but its effort in these two areas has never quite matched the influence it wielded (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) in altering the debate over American foreign policy. Yet, the Foundation continues to weigh in on these topics with varying levels of success. One of its undeniable successes has been serving as a breeding ground for many of the nation’s leading neo-conservative activists and intellectuals.

The following comments by former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey, published in the summer 1994 issue of the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review, exemplify the Heritage philosophy:

(Dick Armey being a Texas Republican during the “Contract with America” years. Below this quote…**)

Liberation is at hand…. A paradigm-shattering revolution has just taken place. In the signal events of the 1980s – from the collapse of communism to the Reagan economic boom to the rise of the computer – the idea of economic freedom has been overwhelmingly vindicated. The intellectual foundation of statism has turned to dust. This revolution has been so sudden and sweeping that few in Washington have yet grasped its full meaning…. But when the true significance of the 1980s freedom revolution sinks in, politics, culture – indeed, the entire human outlook – will change…. Once this shift takes place – by 1996, I predict – we will be able to advance a true Hayekian agenda, including…. radical spending cuts, the end of the public school monopoly, a free market health-care system, and the elimination of the family-destroying welfare dole. Unlike 1944, history is now on the side of freedom.”

then-President CLINTON had to do something to respond to the Republican “Contract with America” — and 1996 TANF (Welfare Reform) was what he did — or at least signed. This 1996 TANF is a major topic of the post and has affected custody situations for years in “Conciliation Court.” It is also affecting the economy, diverting welfare money to support needy families into more and more brutal and upfront declarations that women should marry their way out of poverty — when many women are poor and single because they fled domestic violence in the home, which might have resulted in their deaths (and sometimes still does, after separation) had they stayed, valuing “marriage” good enough to satisfy these people. So, important to understand some of the context. More on Armey from Wikipedia (as the above segment was):

Focus on the Family

According to Armey, he also sparred with Focus on the Family leader James Dobson while in office. Armey wrote, “As Majority Leader, I remember vividly a meeting with the House leadership where Dobson scolded us for having failed to ‘deliver’ for Christian conservatives, that we owed our majority to him, and that he had the power to take our jobs back. This offended me, and I told him so.” Armey states that Focus on the Family targeted him politically after the incident, writing, “Focus on the Family deliberately perpetuates the lie that I am a consultant to the ACLU.”[20]Armey has also said that “Dobson and his gang of thieves are real nasty bullies.“[21]

Yes they are! Of course, here’s how they describe themselves:

They are just — and this whole divert welfare into marriage promotion and abstinence education and “responsible fatherhood” etc. — are just “helping families thrive.”

(The individual, especially not the individual female or mother, does not exist.…)

Some Evangelicals strongly disagree and have explicitly charged that it is submission that is responsible for wife battering in the “Christian” home. James and Phyllis Alsdurf, in Battered Into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home, have noted that conservative Christian women can’t even get help because of this religious ideology of submission. “When she [the battered wife] musters up the courage to go public with ‘her’ problem (very likely to her pastor or a church member), what little human dignity she has retained can soon be ‘trampled underfoot’ with comments like: ‘What have you done to provoke him?’ ‘Well, you’ve got to understand that your husband is under a lot of pressure right now,’ or ‘How would Jesus want you to act: just submit and it won’t happen again.'”

In fact, Jesus gets invoked a lot to justify wife battering, especially as a model for suffering.

2006 Budget

In calendar year 2006 the Heritage Foundation spent over $40.5 million on its operations. That year the foundation raised over $25 million from individual contributors and $13.1 million from foundations.

It goes on — but these are foundations that are to be found behind (funding) so many fatherhood and responsible marriage studies, “Fragile-families” “Strengthening Families” etc. type projects.Whether or not these projects produce as they are supposed to, they continue getting funding and supporting Ph.D.s (Sarah McLanahan of Princeton? comes to mind) to justify more of the same.

When Dobson told Dick Armey that Focus on the Family (& friends, no doubt) “Delivered” the Christian conservatives, now they want something in return — he was probably telling the truth: Look at the amounts:

RIGHTWING WATCH partial bio of James Dobson gives an idea of the scope of influence and pull:

Dr. Dobson has been heavily involved with Republican administrations as an expert on the “family.” Dobson was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the National Advisory Commission to the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1982-84. From 1984-87 he was regularly invited to the White House to consult with President Reagan and his staff on family matters. He served as co-chairman of the Citizens Advisory Panel for Tax Reform, in consultation with President Reagan, and served as a member and later chairman of the United States Army’s Family Initiative, 1986-88. Dobson served on Attorney General Edwin Meese’s Commission on Pornography, 1985-86.

Dobson also consulted with former President George H.W. Bush on family related matters.

In December 1994, Dr. Dobson was appointed by Senator Robert Dole to the Commission on Child and Family Welfare, and in October, 1996, by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.

James Dobson also founded and helped establish another successful conservative group, Washington, DC’s Family Research Council. Established in 1981 by Dobson, the group was designed to be a conservative lobbying force on Capital Hill. In the late 1980’s the group officially became a division of FOF, but in 1992, IRS concerns about the group’s lobbying led to an administrative separation.

James Dobson has a PhD in child development from the University of Southern California.

Erik Prince is a multi-millionaire fundamentalist Christian, who co-founded the security and mercenary firm Blackwater Worldwide in 1997 with Gary Jackson, a former Navy SEAL. He is a major Republican campaign contributor, who interned in the White House of President George H.W. Bush and for conservative congressman Dana Rohrabacher, campaigned for Pat Buchanan in 1992.

His wealth came from his father, Edgar Prince, who headed Prince Automotive, an auto parts and machinery manufacturer. Prince’s sister Betsy DeVos is a powerful conservative in her own right — married to the son of Richard DeVos(Republican bankroller and co-founder of Amway), she served as chair of Michigan Republican Party in the 1990s.

Dobson’s family background (He’s on the board too, obviously) included:

Dobson’s own family was a bit out of the ordinary. His father was a preacher who often told the story that he had tried to pray before he could even talk. His mother routinely beat their son with her shoes, her belt, and once, a 16-pound girdle. His parents somehow instilled so much guilt in young Dobson that he answered his father’s fervent altar-call, weeping at the front of a crowded church service and crying out for God’s forgiveness for all his sins, when he was three years old. “It makes no sense, but I know it happened,” Dobson still says of being born again as a toddler.

Families will fall apart, Dobson argues, if homosexuals have the right to marry, adopt, or raise children. For this reason, Dobson and FOTF support a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one women. Dobson and FOTF are also against abortion, against feminism, against pornography, against the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, against Oregon’s law allowing euthanasia, against Take Our Daughters to Work Day, etc.

(yes, women should stay home, that’s their business, really….)

He has proposed an innovative end run around “liberal” judges. The Republican-controlled Congress should, Dobson suggests, simply stop funding courts where judges make too many “liberal” rulings — stop paying salaries, stop sending security guards, stop paying the electric bills. “Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court,” Dobson says. “They don’t have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s gone.”

Well, he was raised with abuse at home, and bullying, and has grown up basically the same, as Dick Armey said.

Well, in case you want to know why I’m becoming more and more activitist — these are the stakes. The principles of

LIFE

LIBERTY

PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

Bear a slightly different tone when one is dealing with the corporate giants and conservatives complaining that the republican congress and presidency they’d helped deliver weren’t delivering their constituency enough of the “goods” they wanted. While these people (most of the time) themselves have become unbelievably wealthy through corporations, foundations, or simply being born into it (Erik Prince, for example) — the society they are structuring is how to create “responsible fathers” who are willing (like them) to tweak the judicial AND legislative process, go get jobs — most likely low-paying ones — in (whose???) corporations and make sure they don’t let their females get too uppity. When legislative restrictions get in the way, they figure out an end-run around them. I have been seeing this in state after state (thanks to the internet, and networking with others).

I also witnessed this philosophy completely destroy 3 generations of my family line when I fought for the right not to be battered in the home AND the right to work independently to support what was left of this household in a profession of my choosing and for which both my own parents sacrificed to get the college training in. Throughout the court craziness — that would put any normal business underground within a year, without being propped up artificially — I had situations where a 20 minute hearing, or a short rubberstamping by an official who didn’t know our family, obviously hadn’t read the court record, and didn’t respect the existing laws (or court orders), even ones in his own hand — would completely restructure my, and my children’s lives.

We should be aware that the act of going before a “Conciliation Court” is going to expose people — your family & friends — to this treatment.

We should be aware that the act of taking ANY form of welfare (whether for food, cash aid — or, Moms, child support) is also exposing you to the same thing. I tried to get out – -and was pulled back in, as are others. We need forms of living which enable us to fight back against the complete undermining NOT of “Family Values” but of the US Constitution (which is probably in suspension by now, but it should not be so easily forgotten).

The public pays — and I have blogged this, after becoming aware — for public employees to pay membership in private nonprofits designed to help them run the child support business. At these meetings — in my state it calls itself a “COALITION OF EXPERTS COLLECTING BILLIONS FOR CALIFORNIA’S CHILDREN” — the collaborate and plan how to EXPAND the welfare state, not reduce it. They look for ways to have more families become “Title IV-D” families, which brings on the programs, brings program funding to the counties, and etc.

It’s a ridiculous state of affairs — and as far as I can tell the groups in this chart below have not been reporting on it or doing anything about it:

(this has been rather an exhausting page to put up… but… it may prevent some detours in understanding the FAMILY courts specifically — which, after all, are really conciliation courts.)

Just a few words on the NCADV which is a Denver, Colorado-based nonprofit, and what they are marketing:

It is a membership organization (you don’t see it on the above states list, right?). It has sliding scale membership fees — but the public IS paying its dues, because the state organizations pay by % of their budget or — well, as it goes:

Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings

(etc. etc.) Great deals — if you’re in the business. As you can see, they are marketing to DV PRACTITIONERS. . They also do the conferences, where more speakers can also cross-market to attendees. Here’s 2012:

NCADV’s 15th National Conference Domestic ViolenceandNOMAS’ 37th National Conference on Men and Masculinity

I found a group called “CFC” which lists (that new name) as “Best of the CFC” and links to an automated payroll deduction for contribution to it.

WHAT I WiSH TO SAY:

Our kids were not your kids to bargain their rights away for supervised visitation, batterers intervention, parent education classes, or for that matter the more recent “Family Justice Centers.” I personally am recommending a boycott of Verizon (which helps fund these) for that very reason, after a season of being unable to even obtain a single cell phone to help replace the last lost job through the “HelpLine” or anywhere locally that promised this.

I am not very hopeful for the USA, but I live here, so this is part of my contribution as a citizen to report, and part of the legacy I could NOT leave my daughters because they were taken overnight, illegally, and with no remedy: primarily to satisfy someone’s too-large ego, and enabled by what law enforcement, in our case, was not. What was the price? They don’t even have all the facts in their own case, yet, or why society wouldn’t let me simply live and let live after throwing out, or why pro bono legal services for women basically won’t touch this with a 10-foot pole; they are focused on the low-income noncustodial males, and their career tracks, while enabling the rich ones to torture insubordinate exes through the courts. (Note: not my situation, but I see the cases).

These bills are aimed at making it difficult or impossible to open carry properly holstered handguns in California. Because California’s concealed handgun permit program allows Sheriffs and police chiefs absolute discretion in issuance of concealed carry permits, open carry is the only way for most California citizens to carry handguns in public.

If these bills pass, California gun owners will be forced to open carry rifles and shotguns in public places – something which remains legal under the bills. California residents deserve to retain their Second Amendment right to carry handguns, and proponents of these bills want to stomp our rights into the ground.

A number of people in our state are allowed to carry concealed weapons, because they have a concealed carry permit. But not Exposed Unloaded Weapons, because it freaks too many law-abiding citizens out. Lest we have too many freaked-out citizens (not good for business) around, California is passing another law to stop this

I respond as a domestic violence survivor who had dealt with multiple guns (not the only weapon) in the home, It was actually the knives that frightened me more, along with the previous injuries involving neither gun nor knife. Overall, living in fear is now way to live, period. After years of attempting other law-abiding ways to deal with law-breaking behaviors, I sometimes look back and wonder how it might have played out had I learned to be more aggressive, and had come into life (including marriage) with the ability to handle a firearm and self-defense training.

By the end of this (ever-extending) post, you’ll read about an Open Carry advocate soccer mom, who was shot to death by her parole officer husband anyhow (they had young children and were not even separated); about how groups that are typically anti-DV laws (if not feminism) that are quite alert as to violation of civil liberties, and how the domestic violence response typically is, well, er — despite how hated it is by certain groups — still ineffective.

This topic hits close to home, which means it may NOT be my best post, but I’m putting this information out FYI, food for thought. Nibble on some of it, and I hope digest some — if Open Carry is a misdemeanor, then how are women to stay alive and keep their kids alive when there is real — not false allegations, not trumped-up reasons (as it ALLEGEDLY happens so often in courts) — real danger to life, limb, and bystanders because of earlier poor choice of partners followed by the No Exit systems which the family custody arena truly is?

I wonder whether the father who just allegedly shot his two-year old to death, and himself, was illegally carrying a concealed weapon. If the open carry ban finishes its course through California Legislature (both houses) and is signed into law, then this situation might have been an illegal open-carry violation. Either way, it BEGAN at least in violation of a family court custody/visitation order. And Mr. Samaan comes from a family with an attorney and a father in the family court business, and his mother (Mrs. Marak Samaan) a marriage counselor emphasizing, or at least selling, to the Christian community.

[No news article to date has mentioned any role the child support system played in this case, either, just a note…]

When it comes to claiming VAWA and Domestic Violence laws violate civil rights, as to carrying guns, some groups are right on it. Good for them, I guess — but where would a woman in these groups go if being assaulted by a husband, stalked by an ex, and left open and unprotected by the courts, including certifiably insane restraining order/suggestions? The domestic violence entities, while being assailed by father’s rights as too feminist, and violating civil rights (although abuse in the home violates that individual’s a good deal more than rights) have in fact (as I look at the funding in particular, and the rhetoric) lost their feminist edge & fire.

Where is the conversation to the contrary? — on women who have already been threatened, stalked, assaulted, etc. by specific individuals, what about their right to protect themselves, and the impact of no open carry on that? Particularly when the person has gone to jail and been sprung again, as in the case of the infamous Toms’ River murder in NJ?

Anti-VAWA and Anti-DV policies groups are “all over” how domestic violence laws and policies violate their civil rights, including to carry guns, but why are DV Advocates so silent, that a woman might have a cause to?

Instead, they propose (along with these groups), counselings, interventions, publications, and ‘fatherhood’ (programs) as a tool to mitigate abuse! Even absent proof that these schemes even lessen custody- and domestic violence-related male on female homicides & infanticides!

An earlier post on this blog compared approximately 10 years of domestic violence incidents — and I do not remember whether in PA or MN (but probably one of those two states). The topic was likely around mother’s day or fathers’ day, “Can we call it a day?” What I discovered was that the one case where the mother was NOT shot to death in front of her kids, and or a variation of that — was a woman who had a restraining order on, AND a gun in the home, and had informed her neighbors of this. The man violated the restraining order, and was shot — to death. She was not incarcerated for this. However horrible this is, if it were closer to the norm — rather than leaving women cowering in fear, or stranded/beached in false hope for enforcement, or legal protections which don’t, really exist — how many fewer deaths would there be?

Right now, mothers and children are being sent a CLEAR message that if they do not conform, not to the court orders, but to the father’s demands, someone is going to die. And instead of handling this, the press reports “bitter custody dispute” and “resource centers” like “Endabuse.org” (renamed the idealistic “Futures Without Violence”) or “Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs” (Minnesota Program Development), or the NCJFCJ (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, a Reno, Nevada based corporation which supports an amazing database of information on custody, violence, etc. — but is basically connected strongly to the AFCC elements, i.e., family preservation except where there’s been “parental alienation” in which case, punish that bitch for breaking up the family) and other “resource centers” as I have been blogging — these groups run more and more studies, on the government dole, and put up more websites.

Rarely mentioned is how, for example, a family court judge in New Hampshire moved to President of the NCJFCJ, and then on to the Executive Branch USA of Office of Violence Against Women. (I’m speaking of Susan Carbon), and the impact this may have on who gets which grants.

Here’s a brief sample of the “Resource Center Concept,” if you can catch the language — none of which enables a single person to protect him or herself from a determined abuser with an illegal or unregistered gun (or other lethal weapon, which might include a car, fire, or other household items turned lethal). This is from an HHS/ACF.gov site, i.e., Federal policies & funding:

The DVRN works collaboratively to promote practices and strategies to improve our nation’s response to domestic violence and make safety and justice not just a priority, but also a reality. DVRN member agencies ensure that victims of domestic violence, advocates, community-based programs, educators, legal assistance providers, law enforcement and court personnel, health care providers, policy makers, and government leaders at the local, state, tribal and federal levels have access to up-to date information on best practices, policies, research and victim resources.

The DVRN includes two national resource centers, three special issue resource centers, four culturally-specific Institutes, the National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma & Mental Health, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

National Resource Centers

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence800-537-2238www.vawnet.org

The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV), a project of the
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, provides a wide range of free,
comprehensive and individualized technical assistance, training and resource
materials. The scope of NRCDV’s technical assistance is broad and includes domestic
violence intervention and prevention, community education and organizing, public
policy and systems advocacy, and funding. T

Another of these resource centers includes the BWJP — Battered Women’s Justice Project, which has by now collaborated and is collaborating with the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC) ,to the point of making presentations at AFCC conferences. Why not? It’s where the money is!

Notice how “victims of domestic violence” is (a) last and (b) not even a separate category, lumped in with “their families and friends.”

Through trainings and consultations, we disseminate up-to-date information on recentresearch findings and promote the implementation of best practices and policies that
emerge from the work of pioneering communities around the country.

They disseminate information on research findings (including some that they participated in producing) and promote practices and policies emerging from

“Pioneering communities” (such as these nonprofits are the model for) around the country.

DOES THAT STOP A BULLET? DOES IT ENABLE A DV VICTIM’S FAMILY & KIDS TO RELOCATE OUTSIDE OF THE RANGE OF THAT BULLET?

No.

This is why, when it comes to an Open Carry Ban, our ears should perk up.

Domestic violence is a fact of life in today’s society. Numerous laws and regulations exist not only to try to protect the victim, but also to punish the guilty. Unfortunately, the unscrupulous family member or significant other to deprive an innocent party of his or her right to keep and bear arms can also use these laws. Any time a claim of domestic violence is raised, firearms rights are jeopardized.

Firearms disqualifiers exist under both the state and federal laws that may prohibit a person from possessing firearms. Under the Ohio Revised Code § 2923.13 there are five circumstances in which a person may be disqualified from owning firearms, none of which, by themselves, involve domestic violence. One of the federal disqualifiers, however, (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) states that no person shall possess any firearm if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in any court. This provision, also known as the Lautenberg Amendment, has created a great deal of litigation

Relevant part of section (g) of the Federal Disqualifiers, here (see also the link):

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person -

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

. . . (2….7),

(8) who is subject to a court order that –

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The question comes to my mind is — does any ruling in a family court venue consist of a ‘Conviction’? As it’s not a court dealing with torts, it’s a court of equity, right?

Equitable

Pertaining to civil suits in “equity” rather than in “law.” In English legal history, the courts of “law” could order the payment of damages and could afford no other remedy (see damages). A separate court of “equity” could order someone to do something or to cease to do something (e.g., injunction). In American jurisprudence, the federal courts have both legal and equitable power, but the distinction is still an important one. For example, a trial by jury is normally available in “law” cases but not in “equity” cases.” (USCOURTS.gov, Glossary, “Equity)

Tort (same source)

“A civil, not criminal, wrong. A negligent or intentional injury against a person or property, with the exception of breach of contract.”

Conviction

A judgment of guilt against a criminal defendant.

BACK to the OHIO attorney’s article:

A Difficult Situation

A gun enthusiast who is facing a wrongful accusation of domestic violence may have many options at his or her disposal. Most importantly, however, the individual must consult with a competent attorney immediately and before making any statements or signing any paperwork. During the initial consultation, the accused must let the attorney know that he or she is a gun owner, and that keeping his or her Second Amendment rights is one of the client’s goals.

Many times, domestic violence charges can be thrown out for lack of evidence. More often, though, prosecutors will not dismiss even questionable claims out of a desire not to appear unsympathetic to the victims.

An Oregon teacher fighting to carry a handgun to class took her case to court Tuesday, asking a judge to validate her right to carry a concealed weapon in school.

“Jane Doe,” who has asked to keep her name secret, says she is a victim of domestic violence. She teaches high school in Medford, a city of 75,000 in southern Oregon.

In her filing in Jackson County Circuit Court, she asked the judge to tell the Medford School District to stop interfering with her right to carry a Glock 9mm semiautomatic pistol to work. She says her mission is twofold: to protect herself from an abusive ex-husband and to strike a blow in favor of the right to bear arms.

“I want to be able to carry one because it is my Second Amendment right,” she said.

Her attorney said Tuesday that he considered the case a constitutional one; her safety concerns only enhance the argument.

Perhaps if she is in so much danger from her ex she should not be working with children in the first place. I’m certainly sympathetic to her DV issues, but in my mind if she is so concerned about being attacked at school that she needs a gun, then she is putting everyones eles in harm’s way.

I would be removing my child from her class immediately, but the problem is she is going as a “Jane Doe”. I’m sure there are some fairly nervous parents in Medford, Oregon right now.

I cannot imagine this situation. Reality check would say, the woman should consider the safety of the children she is in front of first, be willing to make a career change if necessary, economic hit or no economic hit, and insist that the school have measures to keep prohibited persons, such as her ex, off campus, or remove herself from in front of children that might be subject to stray bullets. In 2008, a woman was stabbed in front of her classroom (plus shots fired):

Police originally said William Michael Layne shot his wife at Notre Dame Elementary, but Chief Charles Horner said it was unclear whether a gunshot fired in the school hit her.

Minutes before the teacher was stabbed, police say her husband stabbed and wounded a different woman in an alley about five blocks from the school.

Horner said at a news conference that he did not know whether that victim, Stephanie Loop, 22, knew the teacher. Loop was also in critical condition.

Christi Layne had filed for divorce Jan. 25.

I remember this case. The man was 56, his girlfriend, that he feared losing, as we see 34 years younger, and the wife closer to his own age, obviously “estranged.” A student describes witnessing the carnage in the elementary school classroom:

The shooting happened around 9 a.m. at the Catholic school on Portsmouth’s main road. Student Emmaly Baker said she hid in the classroom’s coatroom when the gunman came in.

“We heard gunshots, and we heard her yelling. I was scared,” she told WSAZ-TV. “The police officer came and got us and she was still laying there and she was hurt really bad.”

The suspect fled, and for hours after the shooting, a SWAT team surrounded a house about two miles away. Neighbors saw officers shooting at the house at one point, and police said those shots were with low-caliber bullets used to disable a surveillance camera Layne had installed in his yard.

Neighbor Jack Freeland said police eventually broke through the door with a battering ram and sent in a robot.

Suspect shoots himselfPolice had been involved in a domestic dispute between the Laynes about two weeks ago, Horner said, but he did not give details.

It was of course just a “dispute,” although police were called in to settle it or separate them, evidently.

The 56-year-old suspect, known as Mike, was a retired assistant director at the city’s water distribution plant. He apparently shot himself in the head with a shotgun, Coroner Terry Johnson said. He was found in the garage behind his house near the school, Horner said …

The scene was chaotic, with police cars and few ambulances descending on the school, and the fire department blocked off the street.

The school and another Catholic school nearby were locked down, said Deacon Tom Berg, vice chancellor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus. The diocese was sending a crisis team. Local public schools also were locked down, said Superintendent Jan Broughton, who oversees the community’s public schools.

This is The Associated Press co. 2011, and my understanding is this here is Fair Use and not a violation of that copyright.

Colorado Criminal Law Domestic Violence Right to Bear Arms

Colorado Criminal Law: Why Military (Soliders) and Law Enforcement Need to Understand the Impact of a Domestic Violence Conviction on The Right to Bear Arms

The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, effective 30 September 1996, makes it a felony for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition.

The Amendment also makes it a felony to transfer a firearm or ammunition to an individual known, or reasonably believed, to have such a conviction. Soldiers are not exempt from the Lautenberg Amendment.

What are Felony Convictions?

Depending on State law, and the type of Felony conviction, there may be a restriction to the right to possess firearms.

The Lautenberg Amendment. The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended in 1996, makes it a federal felony for anyone who has a qualifying misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition.

For the Lautenberg Amendment, “misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence” are predicate offenses; any crime that “has, as an element, the use . . . of physical force” qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Military regulations have made the act applicable to domestic violence felonies.

What qualifies for a felony conviction must be examined in each case and considered for its elements.

For example under current law in the 9th Circuit, Federal Court of Appeals… violence. has been interpreted to be “physical force” more forceful than de minimis (minimal ) contact, that being something like bare physical contact, whereas other Federal Courts have considered any bare physical contact with another as a use of “physical force” against that person.

There are no exceptions to the Lautenberg prohibition and unless it is avoided entirely, or cured by dismissal, expungment or some legal action to remove it from the individualfs criminal history… the soldier or police officerfs career is at risk since he/she cannot legally carry weapons or ammunition until it is cleared.

It is also a felony for someone to issue or dispose of firearms or ammunition to anyone with a qualifying conviction if you know, or should know, about the conviction.

This dates from 2005 and lists 10 case precedents affirming it. Source is a Tea Party promoter, “FreeRepublic”, self-advertised as:

Welcome to Free Republic!

Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We’re working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is “You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980’s when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole.”

“It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.”

Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police ProtectionPublished in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty – April 2000
by Richard W. StevensRichard Stevens is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and author of Dial 911 and Die (Mazel Freedom Press, 1999).Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.Statistics confirm the obvious truth that the police in America cannot prevent violent crime. In 1997 for example, nationwide there were 18,209 murders, 497,950 robberies, and 96,122 rapes.[1] All those crimes were unprevented and undeterred by the police and the criminal justice system.

Many criminals use firearms to commit their crimes. For example, in 1997 criminals did so in 68 percent of murders and 40 percent of robberies.[2] Thus criminals either have or can obtain firearms. The existing “gun control” laws do not stop serious criminals from getting guns and using them in crimes.Practically speaking, it makes little sense to disarm the innocent victims while the criminals are armed. It is especially silly to disarm the victims when too often the police are simply unable to protect them. As Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, has observed: “Police do very little to prevent violent crime. We investigate crime after the fact.”

Americans increasingly believe, however, that all they need for protection is a telephone. Dial 911 and the police, fire, and ambulance will come straight to the rescue. It’s faster than the pizza man. Faith in a telephone number and the local cops is so strong that Americans dial 911 over 250,000 times per day.

Yeah, well, we also elect certain Presidents that make lots of promises, like jobs creation, and marriage promotion, etc. Much of our society is just based on believing ridiculous promises fed to us.

Yet does dialing 911 actually protect crime victims? Researchers found that less than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect.[3] The 911 bottom line: “cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare.”[4]

No Duty to ProtectIt’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”[5]

PSACAKEsite today [ my 9/11/11 revision of 9/10 post] is displaying Sept. 11, “Never Forget” a flag, and the names of victims, no hyperlinks invite entry to other pages. Site appears to relate to statistics, i.e. Psacake.com Website Analysis

Prof. Leddy, formerly a N.Y. officer, cites personal experience: The ability of the state to protect us from personal violence is limited by resources and personnel shortages [in addition to which] the state is usually unable to know that we need protection until it is too late. By the time that the police can be notified and then arrive at the scene the violent criminal has ample opportunity to do serious harm. I once waited 20 minutes for the New York City Police to respond to an “officer needs assistance” call which has their highest priority. On the other hand, a gun provides immediate protection. Even where the police are prompt and efficient, the gun is speedier.Reference: Silver and Kates, “Handgun Ownership, Self-defense and the Independence of Women in a Violent, Sexist Society” in RESTRICTING HANDGUNS at 144-7.

In fact there is little lack when it comes to men’s groups (in particular) talking about how bad DV laws are and how they restrict their civil rights. For example, (also from Maryland — as the last excerpt was), two pages from a “Special Report” (co. 2011) by “SAVE” — “Stop Abusive and Violent Environments”

Over the years, representatives of the domestic violence field have worked tirelessly to expand the legal scope and effect of our nation’s domestic violence laws.

The process began in the 1980s when the first state-level laws were enacted to permit the issuance of restraining orders for partner abuse. In 1984, the federal government passed the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, which provided funding to abuse shelters. Ten years later, the federal government enacted the Violence Against Women Act, designed to strengthen the response of the criminal justice system to domestic violence cases.

That milestone set the stage for a dramatic expansion of state domestic violence laws. From 1997 to 2003, states enacted an estimated 1,500 domestic violence laws.2 These laws encompass

This Special Report enumerates nine fundamental civil liberties that are affected by domestic violence laws. For each of the civil rights, this report identifies the relevant Constitutional Amendment(s), cites illustrative Supreme Court rulings, documents offending domestic violence laws and policies, and estimates the number of persons whose rights are compromised each year.

This information is presented in the Appendix of this report, “Analysis of Civil Rights and Domestic Violence Policies.”3 The findings are summarized here:

Civil Restraining Orders

1. Freedom of speech 2. Protection from governmental intrusion 3. Due process 4. Freedom to marry and the right to privacy in family matters 5. Right to parent one’s own children 6. Right to bear arms

Estimated number of persons whose rights are harmed each year by restraining orders: 1.5 million

Criminal Justice System

7. Right to be secure in their persons

8. Right to a fair trial

Estimated number of persons whose rights are harmed each year by biased criminal justice procedures: 462,000

Treatment Services

9. Equal treatment under the law

Estimated number of persons whose rights are harmed each year by discriminatory treatment services: 272,000

These numbers add up to an estimated 2.2 million persons. Since some individuals experience repeated violations of their civil liberties in a given year, a more conservative number is 2 million persons whose constitutionally protected rights are compromised each year by domestic violence laws and policies.

During 2003 the Equal Justice Foundation conducted research and published papers in areas ranging from:

• Domestic violence. To quell the hysteria surrounding family violence the EJF has undertaken studies of the causes, prevalence, and legal and social remedies for domestic violence and abuse of men, women, and children without regard to sex. Our objective remains to fix the problem, not the blame.

The research paper by Corry, Fiebert, and Pizzey titled “Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men” (ejfi.org/DV/dv-6.htm) remains heavily accessed with about 20 users a day. Our paper was referenced in several local and national news articles during 2003.

20 users a day is “heavy”? I get much more than that……

Dr. Corry continues to attend the monthly meetings of the Colorado Domestic Violence Offender Management Board (DVOMB) in Lakewood, and serves on the research committee of the DVOMB. A major goal of the DVOMB research committee is to determine the efficacy of current treatment practices for offenders convicted of domestic violence.

• Marriage and families. We advocate for the preservation of families and strengthening the institution of marriage as a contract between two individuals. Working in close affiliation with Prof. Stephen Baskerville of Howard University, a great deal of information was published on our web sites concerning the very negative impact of current laws and government practices on children, families, and marriage.

It is our fundamental tenet that children need both parents in order to develop into healthy, educated, and productive citizens, and we work toward keeping children with their parents whenever possible.

At the time Dr. Emerson was the lawful owner of approximately 30 firearms of varying types that he had owned both before and all during the marriage. His collection included a 9mm model 92F Beretta pistol purchased on October 10, 1997, that he kept in his office. It is fairly common, and prudent for medical doctors who have many drugs in their offices to also keep a firearm there.
Note that about half of the hundreds of married men who have contacted the Equal Justice Foundation have been charged with domestic violence or abuse after finding their wives were having an affair. Allegations of domestic violence or abuse are a standard tactic in a divorce today with virtually no recourse for the husband. Under current laws such false allegations are standard as they give the adulterous wife the house, the car, the kids, the bank account, and anything else she wants with no questions asked, i.e., due process is a thing of the past. She will also almost certainly receive child support even if the child(ren) prove not to be her husband’s. And there is no penalty for her perjury.

Temporary orders hearing for divorce

I think you get the picture: DV allegations are just adulterous women trying to rip off honest, hard-working men. This goes on to detail how he lost his medical practice because of this. Meanwhile, women in family court fighting fatherhood-grants-funded practices also sometimes lose their professions (I did mine!), and sometimes their lives. Or their children lose their lives, too.

WHAT EJI propounds:

• Citizens shall not be torn from their homes and children in the middle of the night based on nothing more than hearsay.

• Men and women shall not be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.

• A secret tribunal shall not have the power to force a man from his home without notice or hearing.

• Police shall not have the right to enter and search a citizen’s home without a warrant.

• Citizens shall not be imprisoned based only on hearsay.

• Citizens are not more afraid of the police than they are of criminals.

• A legal system exists that does not tolerate perjury or the subornation of perjury.

Then logically speaking, the family law system would have to be dismantled, as it’s run primarily by people more interested in subjective, than objective facts, which your local court professional will then interpret.

• Citizens shall not be censured by public officials for crimes they have not committed.

• Men and women are not made to work as indentured servants or held in thrall to others for acts they have not committed.

• A marriage license does not make men and women servants of the State or give courts possession of their children.

(that was enabled decades ago in Conciliation law — see AFCC; most people don’t notice til it hits them).

This is a vocal, but not large, nonprofit:

Equal Justice Foundation, per its site: (bottom of page):

A non-profit 501(c)(3) public charity incorporated under the laws of the State of Colorado.

Purpose stated is to promote equal treatment of both sexes and anything else a corporation can do:

They got off to a good start in the ‘equality’ with the phrase “Know all men by these presents” ( (: were women allowed to know also?)

The members pay dues as determined by the three directors, and an odd phrase, that directors shall not be personally liable to the corporation or members for “monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty, except under (law — CRS 7-128-402) for which such immunity can’t be given. It does not show under a State of Colorado Charitable Registry search, nor any other charity under “Charles Corry,” but otherwise seems to be filing timely 990s. A search of charities in El Paso County also shows nothing by this name.

While many other “Equal Justice Foundations” in other states seem focused on providing legal services (access) to indigent or low-income people, this one is focusing on equalizing the supposed disparity (represented especially by DV laws, in practice) in justice systems against men.

Just a little more indication of how a little nonprofit can produce a LOT of words, and this one in particular is very upset with the restraining orders in general;

He cites Jeffrey Leving and Glenn Sacks, rails on the NCADV (he shouldn’t — they’re collaborating with fatherhood groups anyhow), and says some things which I doubt are true about the procedures. This quote is from “AmericansForEqualRightsforFathers” (is that an oxymoron — equal rights . . . at least for fathers….?). And it’s recent — June 2011:

In effect, the intent of the Colorado Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act is negated once domestic violence or abuse is alleged. The apparent advantages to a woman of alleging abuse are so great, however, that the temptation may well be irresistible. But given the “no drop” provisions of current law, the woman is likely to be trapped in a morass of feminist-inspired laws that are locally fomented by feminists such as Dr. Walker and groups such the NCADV. Likely the individual filing the charges was totally unaware of the implications of her actions, or the repercussions from which there is no escape for her or the man she has accused.

re: women unable to resist the temptation of filing restraining orders, reminds me of the comments elsewhere (same source) that restraining orders are great

excuses for adulterous women to get rid of their spouses. give me a break! Women are portrayed thus as both weak, and stupid. Thanks, Dr. Corry…..

California scheming

Colorado is not the only state, by far, where restraining orders are grossly abused. In a 2006 article attorney Jeffrey Leving and activist Glenn Sacks noted that nearly 250,000 domestic violence restraining orders are currently active in California.

where’s the link?

They referred to a recent article in the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, explains that the bar is concerned that “protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody.” The authors note that protective orders are

“…almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person…it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes.”

“Usually without notice to the restrained persons” is a pretty broad statement. If so, that’s a violation of procedure. Restrained persons get notice. Moreover, restraining orders are not issued solely within family law proceedings; but issuing one where children exist will precipitate immediately some visitation orders; the forms go together.

Such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused’s knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself. When an order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his own children. His first chance to defend himself against the charges is usually two weeks later, at the hearing to make the order permanent. Yet these hearings generally last no more than 15 minutes. The due process they afford the men can be gauged by the State of California’s advice for men contesting restraining orders:

Not mentioned: hearings to also switch custody are conducted in similar manner and can take no more than 20 minutes, if that. Probably because the case was decided by dynamics outside that hearing, which was a mere formality, in advance — generally speaking, in a mediator’s office, or the child support office.

841578107 EIN. For whatever reasons (i looked fairly hard), I see no charitable registration for this group at the state level, or county. The income is very low, obviously — If it is soliciting contributions in Colorado (website notes contributions are tax-deductible), unless Colorado doesn’t require registration, it appears this one never did in the now 10 years of operation. On a side note, one of the incorporators (Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.) served as a Marine, as did his two sons, and he was born in Salt Lake City (Mormon?). this, from website by his name. He spends a lot of time detailing “abuse of protection orders.” His background is geologist, which would include detailed examination of physical facts. So, what’s with the non-registration as a charity in Colorado? Do membership-based charities (not soliciting actively from others) not need to register in that state?

In short, the entity very concerned about civil rights violations has focused diligently on the abuse of these rights when it comes to men subjected to restraining orders and treated unfairly in re: domestic violence. The alarm will be sounded as to feminism, in particular.

So where does this leave a woman / individual wanting to protect herself after assault/threat/stalking — and when the law has not — assuming that occasionally

this individual might actually leave the home? The groups that say, right to bear arms, DV is wrong to take them away under XYZ situations, and DV laws are unfair to men — but in the same manner, I’d like to say that personal assaults on women in the home, particularly pregnant or mothers of small children (who may be nearby) related to their gender, or personal beliefs about how to get submission from women (which MANY religions endorse) — they are also violations of our civil rights. Not to mention, we got the right to vote not til the 1900s, and after quite a bit of fighting for it!

Now here comes:

‘OPEN CARRY’ BAN, CALIFORNIA:

This law reads and sounds a little different to domestic violence survivors who have been dealing with partners with suicidal expressions, during, before, and after restraining order filings. Well, I will speak my mind on this one:

We can’t protect ourselves and our kids in the home with a violent partner.

We can’t protect ourselves or our kids OUT of the home, really, either, afterwards; we have to wade through psychological profiling because, and mostly because, we attempt to set firm boundaries, wish to detach from violent exes who’ve previously injured us, and because the next round of “parent coordinators” values their retirement plans more than our lives, or our kids.

How few (like zero) authorities actually recommend women learn to use a gun for self-defense, or get a permit to carry (openly); instead they are encouraged to file for protective orders which don’t, for the most part.

Sometimes I wonder how much BS that might have done, and whether it might’ve empowered some dv victims, who learned their legal restrictions and responsibilities of using weapons as a deterrent, to stay alive, in the case of home invasion by an irate ex.

Anyhow, here’s my brilliant legislature at work again, well-timed to right around 9-11 when fear of sudden attacks is at an all-time high:

The state Senate has approved legislation today that would make it a crime to openly carry an unloaded handgun in public.

Assembly Bill 144, by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, targets the “open carry” movement, marked by gatherings of people displaying their firearms in public places to protest gun-control laws.

The bill language contains a number of exceptions, including exemptions for peace officers, military gatherings, gun shows and hunting.

Democratic Sen. Kevin de León said the measure would stop a practice that alarms the public and creates a “potentially dangerous” situation when law enforcement officials or members of the public are unsure whether an exposed gun is loaded or not.

“This is not the wild west,” the Los Angeles Democrat said, adding, “How discomforting can it be if you walk into a restaurant, to Starbucks, to Mickey D’s, wherever it is that you may go to, and all of a sudden you see someone walking around with a handgun, and you don’t know, can’t discern if they’re a law enforcement agent.”

No Republicans voted for the bill. Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, criticized the proposal for “further narrowing peoples’ Second Amendment rights.”

“The Second Amendment is not a loophole,” LaMalfa said, adding that open carry is “isn’t a problem for anybody except for the gun grabbers that continually chip away and narrow our basic rights.”

The bill was approved 21-18, with three Democrats joining Republicans in opposing the measure. The bill now returns to the Assembly for consideration of amendments added in the upper house.

Here (obviously I”m trawling internet for related posts) is an “forum.officer.forum” discussing a DV murder of an open-carry woman, by her husband, distinguishing DV from protection from home invasion, etc. I think it’s 2009.

The tragic murder of Meleanie Hain by her husband shatters two of Open Carry’s biggest myths:#1 – That carrying a gun makes you safe from those that will do you harm.

#2 – No one who carries legally ever commits a crime.

Mrs. Hain was an huge advocate for carrying a gun and was a member of the OpenCarry.org forums. She, like everyone there, went out of her way to try to stir up attention by open carrying in places sure to cause controversy.

Her husband was a Parole Officer and also an advocate of carrying guns.

Yet neither mattered when it came to her murder.

I wonder how the gun crazies will spin this into a reason why everyone should carry?

There is no reason for anyone to “spin” anything about how being armed prevents crime. This fact has already been proven time and again that it most definately does deter and prevent armed robberies and save lives during home invasions.
You point out this one tragic incident that was all about domestic violence and has nothing to do with prevention. It’s not like anyone would be prepared for their spouse to walk up to them while they are in the normal course of their daily lives and shoot them in their very home. Even if she would have carried walking around in her underwear at home nobody could account for someone you trust suddenly shooting you in your head and that goes for not only soccer mom’s but cops also. I’m sure had it been some stranger who broke in her home the story would be different. It’s also pretty low class to provoke some type of “counter” argument thread against open carry and 2nd ammendment issue’s based on this tragedy. You might as well just stand over her corpse and shout “how did that open carry work out for ya hon?”
It again just proves how irrational those who think only Police should be allowed to carry are in their thinking and logic.

LEBANON, Pa. – A soccer mom who was thrust into the national gun-rights debate after taking a loaded pistol to youth sports events was killed by her husband in a shooting witnessed online by her video chat partner, authorities said Friday.

Scott Hain used his own gun to fire several shots into his 30-year-old wife, Meleanie, while her video chat was active and perhaps as she washed dishes in their kitchen, police said. Scott Hain, 33, later killed himself in an upstairs bedroom.

Meleanie Hain’s loaded pistol — with a bullet ready in the chamber — was in a backpack hanging from the front door.

The couple’s three young children were home just before the murder-suicide, but authorities stopped short of saying they were home at the time. The online friend heard a shot and screams and turned to see Scott Hain firing, they said.

He “observed Scott Hain standing over where Meleanie was and discharging a handgun several times,” Lebanon Police Chief Daniel Wright said at a news conference. The man, who was described as a friend of both Scott and Meleanie Hain, called 911.

“He kept open his Web cam episode; however, he heard nothing or saw nothing after that,” Wright said. The chat was apparently not recorded.

Meleanie Hain became a voice of the gun-rights movement last year when she fought for the right to carry a holstered pistol at her young daughter’s soccer games. Other parents complained, prompting a sheriff to revoke her concealed-weapons permit, a decision a judge later overturned.

. . . .

Scott Hain, a parole officer, owned the 9 mm handgun used to kill his wife. He then killed himself with a shotgun, authorities said after Friday’s autopsies. Police found several handguns, a shotgun, two rifles and several hundred rounds of ammunition in their Lebanon home, as well as six spent shell casings in the kitchen.

Friends and neighbors told police the couple had been having marital problems, but police knew of no immediate cause of the violence. Scott Hain was living at the family home at the time, Wright said.

Their three children are ages 2, 6 and 10.

Neighbor Aileen Fortna has said the children told another neighbor that “daddy shot mommy.”

On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.

The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed an obvious point. If the government won’t protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court’s ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself.

Yet this is what the ENTIRE superstructure of the restraining order apparatus coaches women to do, failing to tell the the whole truth, in perspective. I have finally deduced that the restraining orders represent head-counts that, most likely, simply enable grants money to go to police departments which may (or may not) respond, or even be able to respond, to a subsequent call for help — though I know many times police do, and sometimes they lose their lives in so doing.

This is not mainstream viewpoint for DV advocates, at all, but at least one person, Bonnie Russell (familylawcourts.com) seems to have comprehended this.

McElroy continues (actually “continued” about 6 years ago):

Nevertheless, most anti-domestic violence advocates strenuously avoid gun ownership as a possible solution to domestic violence. Instead, they appeal for more police intervention even though the police have no obligation to provide protection.

When groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) do focus on gun ownership, it is to make such statements as, “Guns and domestic violence make a lethal combination, injuring and killing women every day.”

In short, NOW addresses the issue of gun ownership and domestic violence only in order to demand a prohibition on the ability of abusers — always defined as men — to own weapons.

There is no love lost between this woman and NOW, for sure …. and for the record, she’s fairly pro-fatherhood rights in general . .. but does this or does it not make sense?

That position may be defensible. But it ignores half of the equation. It ignores the need of potential victims to defend themselves and their families. Anti-domestic violence and women’s groups create the impression that guns are always part of the problem and never part of the solution.

The current mainstream of feminism — from which most anti-domestic violence advocates proceed — is an expression of left liberalism. It rejects private solutions based on individual rights in favor of laws aimed at achieving social goals. A responsible individual holding a gun in self-defense does not fit their vision of society.

In the final analysis, such advocates do not trust the judgment of the women they claim to be defending. They do not believe that Jessica Gonzales’ three children would have been safer with a mother who was armed and educated in gun use.

…

The true meaning of being anti-domestic violence means is to help victims out of their victimhood and into a position of power.

This can’t be done if one is adamantly anti-divorce, and pro-shared-parenting even with convicted batterers/ molesters. Clearly (see Sherri Hain) marriage isn’t good for everyone… and is no panacea. If I’d been left for help from the marriage-promotion-mongers, my kids and I would have been dead years ago. Thank God for feminism enough to invent the restraining order to get this process started (since few others have the guts to stand up to a man beating on his wife in front of his kids, OR vice versa — and few religious groups are self-less enough to risk losing the income from that man’s family by properly confronting and helping him get arrested, mandated reporters or not. These groups, like Pacific Justice Institute (and not-legally-incorporated friends, to wit, Capital Resource Institute) are far more concerned about homosexuals, or cities (such as San Leandro, California) expecting churches, also, to abide by zoning laws and not expand infinitely, rewriting them in the process.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, “Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century” (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband Simon, which limited his access to their children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three daughters. Though the Castle Rock police department disputes some of the details of what happened next, the two sides are in basic agreement: After her daughters’ abduction, Gonzales repeatedly phoned the police for assistance. Officers visited the home. Believing Simon to be non-violent and, arguably, in compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining order, the police did nothing.

The next morning, Simon committed “suicide by cop.” He shot a gun repeatedly through a police station window and was killed by returned fire. The murdered bodies of Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9 and Rebecca, 10 were found in Simon’s pickup truck.

In her lawsuit, Gonzales claimed the police violated her 14th Amendment right to due process and sued them for $30 million. She won at the Appeals level.

What were the arguments that won and lost in the Supreme Court?

Winners: local officials fell back upon a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, “…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

I was focused on not bargaining away the judicial process to special interests under SB-557, Family One-Stop Justice-Shops (so to speak) and was caught unawares when a TV news bulletin flashed the headline, somewhere inbetween a San Mateo psychiatrist accused of molesting youngsters being sent to a state hospital, and promises that there are more jobs on the horizon, just have a little faith…..

The first thing I notice is how very many different entitities would NOT be subject to the open carry ban, including what looks at first reading to be employees of nonprofit organizations set up for the public good (does this include supervised visitation centers, parent education peddlars, and family counselors who formed — and managed to maintain — nonprofits for the purpose? Are THEY allowed to do open carry? I mean, exactly what does this language mean?

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Portantino
JANUARY 13, 2011
An act to amend Sections 7574.14 and 7582.2 of the Business and Professions Code, and to amend Sections 626.9, 16520, 17510, 25595, 25605, and 29805 of, to add Sections 17040, 17295, and 25590 to, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 26350) to Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 of, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 144, as introduced, Portantino. Firearms.
Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, makes it an offense
to carry a concealed handgun on the person or in a vehicle, as
specified. Existing law provides that firearms carried openly in belt
holsters are not concealed within the meaning of those provisions.
This bill would establish an exemption to the offense for
transportation of a firearm between certain areas where the firearm
may be carried concealed, or loaded, or openly carried unloaded, as
specified.
Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, makes it an offense
to carry a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any
public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in
any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of
unincorporated territory.
The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun on the person in specified public areas.By creating a new offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would make conforming and nonsubstantive technical
changes.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 7574.14 of the Business and Professions Code is
amended to read:
7574.14. This chapter shall not apply to the following:

Note: I gather that it's considered that any of the following list are apt to get shot at by irate

people in the course of doing their normal business. Notice exemption (b), below ....
(a) An officer or employee of the United States of America, or of
this state or a political subdivision thereof, while the officer or
employee is engaged in the performance of his or her official duties,
including uniformed peace officers employed part time by a public
agency pursuant to a written agreement between a chief of police or
sheriff and the public agency, provided the part-time employment does
not exceed 50 hours in any calendar month.
(b) A person engaged exclusively in the business of obtaining and
furnishing information as to the financial rating of persons.
(c) A charitable philanthropic society or association incorporated under the laws of this state that is organized and duly maintained for the public good and not for private profit.

ANY 501(c)3? ???

(d) Patrol special police officers appointed by the police commission of any city,

county, or city and county under the express terms of its charter who also

under the express terms of the charter
(1) are subject to suspension or dismissal after a hearing on charges
duly filed with the commission after a fair and impartial trial, (2)
must be not less than 18 years of age nor more than 40 years of age,
(3) must possess physical qualifications prescribed by the
commission, and (4) are designated by the police commission as the owners of a certain beat or territory

as may be fixed from time to time by the police commission.

(e) An attorney at law in performing his or her duties as an attorney at law.

(f) A collection agency or an employee thereof while acting within
the scope of his or her employment, while making an investigation
incidental to the business of the agency, including an investigation
of the location of a debtor or his or her property where the contract
with an assignor creditor is for the collection of claims owed or
due or asserted to be owed or due or the equivalent thereof.

(g) Admitted insurers and agents and insurance brokers licensed by the state,

performing duties in connection with insurance transacted by them.
(h) Any bank subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of
Financial Institutions of the State of California under Division 1
(commencing with Section 99) of the Financial Code or the Comptroller
of Currency of the United States.

(i) A person engaged solely in the business of securing information about persons or property

from public records.

(j) A peace officer of this state or a political subdivision
thereof while the peace officer is employed by a private employer to
engage in off-duty employment in accordance with Section 1126 of the
Government Code. However, nothing herein shall exempt such a peace
officer who either contracts for his or her services or the services
of others as a private patrol operator or contracts for his or her
services as or is employed as an armed private security officer. For
purposes of this subdivision, "armed security officer" means an
individual who carries or uses a firearm in the course and scope of
that contract or employment.
(k) A retired peace officer of the state or political subdivision
thereof when the retired peace officer is employed by a private
employer in employment approved by the chief law enforcement officer
of the jurisdiction where the employment takes place, provided that
the retired officer is in a uniform of a public law enforcement
agency, has registered with the bureau on a form approved by the
director, and has met any training requirements or their equivalent
as established for security personnel under Section 7583.5. This
officer may not carry an unloaded and exposed handgun unless he or she is

exempted under the provisions of Article 2 (commencing with Section 26361) of Chapter 6 of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 of the Penal Code, and may not carry
a loaded or concealed firearm unless he or she is exempted under the provisions of Sections 25450
to 25475, inclusive, of the Penal Code or Sections 25900 to 25910,
inclusive, of the Penal Code or has met the requirements set forth in
subdivision (d) of Section 26030 of the Penal Code. However, nothing
herein shall exempt the retired peace officer who contracts for his
or her services or the services of others as a private patrol
operator.
(l) A licensed insurance adjuster in performing his or her duties
within the scope of his or her license as an insurance adjuster.
(m) Any savings association subject to the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner of Financial Institutions or the Office of Thrift
Supervision.
(n) Any secured creditor engaged in the repossession of the creditor's collateral and any lessor engaged in the repossession of leased property in which it claims an interest. (o) A peace officer in his or her official police uniform acting
in accordance with subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 70 of the
Penal Code.
(p) An unarmed, uniformed security person employed exclusively and regularly by a motion picture studio facility employer who does not provide contract security services for other entities or persons in
connection with the affairs of that employer only and where there
exists an employer-employee relationship if that person at no time
carries or uses any deadly weapon, as defined in subdivision (a), in
the performance of his or her duties, which may include, but are not
limited to, the following business purposes:

And so on …. This is not a bill to let slip under, or even over, the radar. For example, exemption for schools:

j) The open carrying of an unloaded handgun within a school
zone, as defined, with the written permission of the school
district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent
school authority;
Or gg) The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by a person

when that person is summoned by a peace officer to assist
in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she
is actually engaged in assisting that officer;

If you live in a county with less than 200,000 people, you may apply for a “modified” concealed weapons permit. Still considered a CCW permit, this license allows you to carry a loaded and exposed pistol, revolver, or other firearm on your person (this law only pertains to persons in counties with less than 200,000 people).4

This permit is essentially a hybrid between a license to carry a concealed weapon and California’s open carry laws which generally allow you to carry an unloaded exposed weapon.

Huey P. Newton (1942-1989) founded the Afro-American Society and was a co-founder of the Black Panther Party, serving as its minister of defense during much of the 1960s. Later he turned to community service for the poor.

Huey P. Newton was born February 17, 1942, in Monroe, Louisiana. The youngest of seven children, Huey was named for former Louisiana governor Huey Pierce Long. The Newton family moved to Oakland, California, in 1945 to take advantage of the job opportunities created by World War II wartime industries. In Oakland the family moved often, and in one house Huey was compelled to sleep in the kitchen. Even though the Newton’s were poor and victims of discrimination and segregation, Huey contends that he never felt deprived as a child and that he never went hungry.

Huey attended the Oakland public schools where, he claimed, he was made to feel “uncomfortable and ashamed of being black.” He responded by constantly and consistently defying authority, which resulted in frequent suspensions. At the age of 14, he was arrested for gun possession and vandalism. In his autobiography, Revolutionary Suicide, Newton wrote, “during those long years in the Oakland public schools, I did not have one teacher who taught me anything relevant to my own life or experience. Not one instructor ever awoke in me a desire to learn more or to question or explore the worlds of literature, science, and history. All they did was try to rob me of the sense of my own uniqueness and worth, and in the process they nearly killed my urge to inquire.”

According to Newton, he did not learn to read well until he had finished high school. “I actually learned to read–really read more than just ‘dog’ and ‘cat,’ which was about all I could do when I left high school–by listening to records of Vincent Price reading great poetry, and then looking up the poems to see how the words looked.” In order to prove that high school counselors were wrong in saying he was not college material, Newton attended Merritt College intermittently, eventually earning an Associate of Arts degree. He also studied law at Oakland City College and at San Francisco Law School.

Newton claimed he studied law to become a better burglar. He was arrested several times for minor offenses while still a teenager and he supported himself in college by burglarizing homes in the Oakland and Berkeley Hills area and running the “short change” game. In 1964, at age 22, he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to six months in the Alameda County jail. Newton spent most of this sentence in solitary confinement, including the “soul breaker”–extreme solitary confinement.

While at Oakland City College, Newton had become politically oriented and socially conscious. He joined the Afro-American Association and played a role in getting the first black history course adopted as part of the college’s curriculum. He read the works of Frantz Fanon, Malcolm X, Chairman Mao Tse-tung, and Che Guevara. A child of the ghetto and a victim of discrimination and the “system,” Newton was very much aware of the plight of Oakland’s African-American community. Realizing that there were few organizations to speak for or represent lower class African-Americans, Newton along with Bobby Seale organized the Black Panther Party for Self Defense in October 1966, with Seale as chairman and Newton as minister of defense. Like a wary panther that would not attack unless attacked, so too was the organization regarded.

Cop-haters since childhood, Newton and Seale decided the police must be stopped from harassing Oakland’s African-Americans; in other words, to “defend the community against the aggression of the power structure, including the military and the armed might of the police.”Newton was familiar with the California penal code and the state’s law regarding weapons and was thus able to convince a number of African-Americans of their right to bear arms. Members of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense began patrolling the Oakland police. Guns were the essential ingredient on these patrols. Newton and other Black Panther members observed police procedure, ensured that African-American citizens were not abused, advised African-Americans of their rights, and posted bail for those arrested. In addition to patrolling the police, Newton and Seale were responsible for writing the Black Panther Party Platform and Program, which called for freedom, full employment, decent housing, education, and military exemption for African-Americans. . . .

Stokely Carmichael was born in thePort of Spain,Trinidad, on 29th June, 1941. Carmichael moved to the United States in 1952 and attended high school inNew York City. He enteredHoward Universityin 1960 and soon afterwards joined theStudent Nonviolent Coordinating Committee(SNCC).In 1961 Carmichael became a member of theFreedom Riders. After training in non-violent techniques, black and white volunteers sat next to each other as they travelled through the Deep South. Local police were unwilling to protect these passengers and in several places they were beaten up by white mobs. InJackson,Mississippi, Carmichael was arrested and jailed for 49 days inParchman Penitentiary. Carmichael also worked on theFreedom Summerproject and in 1966 became chairman ofSNCC.On 5th June, 1966,James Meredithstarted a solitaryMarch Against Fearfrom Memphis to Jackson, to protest against racism. Soon after starting his march he was shot by sniper. When they heard the news, other civil rights campaigners, including Carmichael,Martin Luther KingandFloyd McKissick, decided to continue the march in Meredith’s name.When the marchers got toGreenwood,Mississippi, Carmichael and some of the other marchers were arrested by the police. It was the 27th time that Carmichael had been arrested and on his release on 16th June, he made his famousBlack Powerspeech. Carmichael called for “black people in this country to unite, to recognize their heritage, and to build a sense of community”. He also advocated that African Americans should form and lead their own organizations and urged a complete rejection of the values of American society.

This organization later changed its name to the Black Panther Party. In October 1966 Bobby Seale and Huey Newton formed the Black Panther Party (BPP) in Oakland, California. They named the new organization after the emblem adopted by the Lowndes County Freedom Organization.The Black Panthers were initially formed to protect local communities from police brutality and racism. The group also ran medical clinics and provided free food to school children. Within a couple of years the Black Panthers in Oakland were feeding over 10,000 children every day before they went to school. Prominent members of the Black Panthers included Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, Fred Hampton, Fredrika Newton,Eldridge Cleaver, Kathleen Cleaver, David Hilliard, Angela Davis, Bobby Hutton and Elaine Brown. The Black Panthers had chapters in several major cities and had a membership of over 2,000. Harassed by the police, members became involved in several shoot-outs. This included an exchange of fire between Panthers and the police at Oakland on 28th October, 1967. Huey Newton was wounded and while in hospital was charged with killing a police officer. The following year he was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. On 6th April, 1968 eight BPP members, including Eldridge Cleaver, Bobby Hutton and David Hilliard, were travelling in two cars when they were ambushed by the Oakland police. Cleaver and Hutton ran for cover and found themselves in a basement surrounded by police. The building was fired upon for over an hour. When a tear-gas canister was thrown into the basement the two men decided to surrender. Cleaver was wounded in the leg and so Hutton said he would go first. When he left the building with his hands in the air he was shot twelve times by the police and was killed instantly.In November 1968 Fred Hamptonfounded the Chicago chapter of the Black Panther Party. He immediately established a community service program. This included the provision of free breakfasts for schoolchildren and a medical clinic that did not charge patients for treatment. Hampton also taught political education classes and instigated a community control of police project.One of Hampton’s greatest achievements was to persuade Chicago’s most powerful street gangs to stop fighting against each other. In May 1969 Hampton held a press conference where he announced a nonaggression pact between the gangs and the formation of what he called a “rainbow coalition” (a multiracial alliance of black, Puerto Rican, and poor youths).. . . . .

In 1973 Bobby Seale ran for mayor of Oakland and came second out of nine candidates with 43,710 votes (40 per cent of votes cast). The following year Elaine Brown was elected party chief and helped to turn it into a supporter of women’s rights. Under her leadership the party successfully supported Lionel Wilson in his campaign to become the first black mayor of Oakland.In 1975, Frank Church

became the chairman of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities.

This committee investigated alleged abuses of power by the Central Intelligence Agency andFederal Bureau of Intelligence. The committee looked at the case of Fred Hamptonand discovered that William O’Neal, Hampton’s bodyguard, was a FBI agent-provocateur who, days before the raid, had delivered an apartment floor-plan to the Bureau with an “X” marking Hampton’s bed. Ballistic evidence showed that most bullets during the raid were aimed at Hampton’s bedroom.

By Brian Charles, Staff Writer
Posted: 09/09/2011 11:44:48 AM PDT

Legislation backed by Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, making it illegal to carry an unloaded gun in public was approved by a razor thin majority in the state Senate late Thursday, officials said. The bill now moves to back to the state Assembly for what’s known as “concurrence,” which allows for approval of changes in language, according to a statement from Portantino’s office.

If passed, those who violate the open carry ban could be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1000, or both. There are a number of exemptions for law enforcement personnel and hunters as well as others carrying unloaded weapons under specified licensed circumstances.

California is one of many states that gives gun owners the right to display weapons, though in California those guns must be unloaded. Carrying loaded firearms in public is already against the law in California.

Portantino, who led the fight against open carry, welcomed the news of the passage of the open carry ban by the state Senate.

“I am very pleased that my fellow legislators agree this is a sensible gun ban that closes a loophole in the law and I am hopeful that Governor Brown agrees,” Portantino said.”Open Carry puts law enforcement and families at risk on Main Street, California. It wastes law enforcement time and attention dealing with unnecessary 9-1-1 calls about gun-toting men and women in coffee shops, restaurants and malls.”

The dispute came to a

Advertisement

head last year when gun enthusiasts began showing up in coffee shops and public beaches with unloaded guns strapped to their hips.
A gun advocacy group organized a night out in Old Pasadena earlier this year. The gun-toting group strolled through the commercial district asking restaurant owners whether they were willing to seat armed partons.

Similar legislation was introduced in 2010 but did not make it to the Governor’s desk because of a miscue at the end of the session. Portantino took up the cause this year and worked with law enforcement to re-introduce the open carry ban.

“Average Californians understand police officers displaying loaded weapons, they understand hunters, and they even understand those folks who are legally licensed to a carry a weapon.,” Portatino said. “What they don’t want is a proliferation of public displays of weapons for no purpose.”

The crux of the peace versus violence controversy focuses on gun control versus the right to own a handgun. In the watershed McDonald v. Chicago 2010 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the right to own a handgun. The court held the Second Amendment right to bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee. The Constitution restrains state and local governments from restricting an individual’s right to bear arms. The ruling overturned Chicago’s law that banned handgun ownership.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion stated, the “Second Amendment right applies equally to the federal government and the states.” The court held the Second Amendment right is “fundamental” to the American scheme of ordered liberty. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149 (1968) and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997).

Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that “states have substantial latitude and ample authority to impose regulations.” Justice Samuel Alito further stated with respect to current regulations, “We repeat those assurances here.”

Neither this decision nor the 2008 decision posed a threat to long-standing restrictions on the sale of firearms to felons and mentally ill people, or to laws that bar guns from “sensitive” venues such as schools and courthouses. In addition, the decision still allows states to impose reasonable regulations, such as requiring handgun owners to take a safety course.

In a vehement dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and John Paul Stevens disagreed with the high court’s determination that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to gun ownership. Justice Stevens stated the decision “could prove far more destructive – quite literally- to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.” Hence, one can reasonably infer that violence could increase in urban communities.

Prior to 2008, lawmakers in Washington, D.C., a federal city, required handgun owners to register weapons, submit to a multiple-choice test, fingerprinting, and a ballistics test. Owners were also required to demonstrate they had instruction on handling a gun and spent at least an hour on the firing range. In the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. _____ case, the court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and a trigger lock requirement for other guns. In Heller the court held the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for self-defense in the home. The court reasoned that self-defense is “highly valued.” Furthermore in Heller, the court stated, “Individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” Moreover, the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute in the home.”

Washington, D.C. prohibited carrying loaded weapons outside the home.

The McDonald decision will have implications for other states. For instance, Massachusetts has a state law that requires gun owners to lock weapons in their homes. Virginia has a law that limits handgun purchases to once per month. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the decision allows cities “to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens.”

Chicago vigorously defended their handgun ban laws in this case before the court. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley emphatically stated, “How many more of our citizens must needlessly die because guns are too easily available in our society?”

Jermaine A. Wyrick is an attorney with the Law Offices of Jermaine Wyrick PLLC in Southfield. He can be reached at (313) 964-8950, or by e-mail at Attyjaw1@Ameritech.net.

Mon, 08/29/2011 – 9:17am

WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms” is proving to be a right to keep a gun at home, but so far not a right to bear a loaded firearm in public.

The Supreme Court breathed new life into the amendment when it struck down strict handgun bans in Washington and Chicago and spoke of the “inherent right of self-defense.”

But to the dismay of gun rights advocates, judges in recent months have read those decisions narrowly and rejected claims from those who said they had a constitutional right to carry a loaded gun on their person or in their car. Instead, these judges from California to Maryland have said the “core right” to a gun is limited to the home.

Now, the National Rifle Association is asking the high court to take up the issue this fall and “correct the widespread misapprehension that the Second Amendment’s scope does not extend beyond the home.”

Stephen Halbrook, an NRA lawyer, said “some judges have buried their heads in the sand and have refused to go one step further” than saying there is a right to have a gun at home.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence hailed the trend and called the high court’s rulings a “hollow victory” for gun enthusiasts. “The gun lobby has tried to expand (the Second Amendment) into a broad right to carry any type of gun anywhere. And they have been almost unanimously rejected by the courts,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of legal action. He conceded, however, that “this battle is far from over.”

The uncertainty began with the Supreme Court itself. In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia said the history of the Second Amendment shows it “guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” But other parts of his 5-4 opinion stressed there is no right to “carry any weapon in any manner,” and that bans on “carrying concealed weapons were lawful” in the 19th century.

Since then, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed to challenge gun restrictions. In California, federal judges in San Diego and Yolo counties rejected suits from law-abiding gun owners who were denied “concealed carry” permits.

“The Second Amendment does not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in public,” U.S. District Judge Morrison England ruled in May.

“That’s the cutting-edge issue: whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home,” said Chuck Michel, an NRA lawyer in Long Beach, Calif., who has appealed the question to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

State judges in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York have also ruled recently that there is no constitutional right to carry a loaded gun for self-defense. And in Virginia, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal conviction of a man who fell asleep in his car near Washington’s Reagan National Airport with a loaded gun.

Despite setbacks in court, gun owners are winning on the political front. Now, 40 states grant concealed-carry permits to qualified gun owners. California, Maryland and Illinois are among the handful of states with large urban populations that deny most or all permits, except to those who show they face a specific danger.

Far be it from most people to recognize that having a “domestic dispute” or an “estranged ex” and a bitter custody battle is actually a danger to anyone, including bystanders.

Judges have been wary of second-guessing these restrictions. If the right to bear arms is to apply “outside the home environment, we think it is prudent to await direction from the (Supreme) Court itself,” U.S. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a prominent conservative on the 4th Circuit bench, wrote in March. “This is serious business. We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to Second Amendment rights.”

The Supreme Court has two appeal petitions before it. In one, Charles Williams, a Maryland resident, is appealing his one-year jail term for carrying a legally registered gun in a backpack. The other involves Sean Masciandaro, the Virginia man who was convicted and fined for “carrying a loaded weapon in a motor vehicle” on national parkland.

Obama administration lawyers are expected to urge the court to steer clear of the issue. However, if the justices vote to hear it, the administration would have to argue that the right to bear arms does not extend to concealed weapons.

“We think if there is a Second Amendment right outside the home, it surely applies to law-abiding citizens carrying handguns for self-defense while traveling on public highways,” said Antigone Peyton, a Virginia lawyer who represents Masciandaro. She said her client travels to put on exhibits of reptiles and sometimes sleeps in his car to save money.

In her petition to the high court, she said her client, “like millions of law-abiding gun owners, should be told the scope of his right to keep and bear arms in case of confrontation.”

Distributed by MCT Information Services

Legal discussion of background of 2nd amendment

Not my best post, but I am beginning to wonder how the Legislature expects the Non-Exempt from Open Carry Ban citizens to protect themselves, when the policy have no duty to, the prisons are full, the schools squelch desire to learn (see Huey Newton) far too often, and restraining orders are stripped off in the course of custody battles, supervised visitation slapped onto mothers for alienating the children, and fathers are at times extorted into ridiculous class participation, for profit to others, under guise of reducing welfare/child support enforcement. which admittedly would could definitely push one too many buttons.

Domestic Violence Advocates are NOT, as a feminist would (I believe) actually advocating women simply learn how to protect themselves by at least in-home defense and firearms skill (and ownership). No, they want to push and publish more “interventions” and teaching based on the “Collective Community Response” model — which is even less effective than the police will save you model:

From how I read the proposed California law, this nonprofit, if it were in California, being a nonprofit, would have a right to open carry (?)

Addressing Fatherhood with Men who Batter? Give me a break!

Note: Difficult post to write, I just want to call attention to the legislative process here. The text was flipping around each time I pasted a section or quote, very tedious to assemble.

For what it’s worth, Californians need to look at this one carefully, and also find time to scrutinize one’s legislative bills — some how. One never knows what’s next.

No, I cannot picture myself “open carrying” anything — however, it does bring up the question, what’s the profit in disarming most (but not all) of a population, particularly those most inclined to be law-abiding to start with? Leave it to the authorities, all will be well. Sure.